2.27.2016 The Gift of FORGIVENESS by charles stanley

note: i have been increasingly disturbed...DEEPLY....in my spirit over dysfunctional relationships and like the sinner i am have put most or all of the blame on the other side...have been crying out to God to show me what is wrong and last week a friend put this book in my hand. the moment my eyes hit the first page i found hope and saw myself as i am...may God give grace and grant me the title below...
 chapter 1 - FORGIVENESS AND FREEDOM

'forgive him?  are you kidding?  after what he has done to me?  I can NEVER forgive him!'
'FORGIVE ME? HOW COULD GOD FORGIVE ME? YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT I'VE DONE'.
'how could I have done such an awful thing? i can never forgive myself'.

these are the confessions I hear every day as a pastor. confessions from people who have grown up in churches, grown up with godly parents and yet grown up without ever fully understanding god's forgiveness and its intended effect on every level of their lives.
the tragedy of all this is the bondage people find themselves in when they do not grasp the immensity of God's forgiveness. it is a bondage that stifles their ability to love and accept those they know in their hearts most deserve their love. it is a bondage that cripples marriages from their outset. it is a bondage that is often
16  passed from generation to generation. it is a bondage that chokes out the abundant life Christ promised to those who would believe.
that is why I felt compelled to write this book on forgiveness. only by truly understanding god's forgiveness and making it a part of their lives will they be able to enjoy the freedom that ensues and be able to live the Christian life to its fullest.

WHAT IS FORGIVENESS?
forgiveness is 'the act of setting someone free from an obligation to you that is a result of a wrong done against you'.
for example, a debt is forgiven when you free your debtor of his obligation to pay back what he owes you.
forgiveness, then, involves three elements:
INJURY
A DEBT RESULTING FROM THE INJURY and
THE CANCELLATION OF THAT DEBT.
all three elements are essential if forgiveness is to take place. before we look in more detail at this process, however, we need to trace the sequence of events that lead to bondage when this process is abandoned. this is important because i believe most people who suffer from an unforgiving spirit do not know that unforgiveness is the root of their problem.
all they know is that they just 'can't stand' to be around certain people. they find themselves wanting to strike out at people when certain subjects are discussed. they feel uncomfortable around certain personality types. they lose their temper over little things. they constantly struggle with guilt over sins committed in the past. they can't get away from the ambivalence of hating the ones they know they should love the most. such feelings and behavior patterns often indicate that people
17  have not come to grips with the forgiveness of god and the implications of that forgiveness.

TAKING HOSTAGES
we are all painfully aware of what it means for somebody to be taken hostage. we are outraged when the news of such an atrocity reaches us. and yet when we refuse to forgive others (or ourselves, for that matter),  there is a sense in which we hold them hostage. let me explain.
when a person is taken hostage on the international scene, the abductors usually want something. it may be money, weapons or the release of prisoners. the message they send, in essence is,  'if you give us what we want, we will give you back what we have taken'. there is always some type of condition, a ransom of some sort.
when individuals refuse to forgive others for a wrong done to them, they are saying the same thing. but instead of holding people hostage until they get their demands, they withhold love, acceptance, respect, service, kindness, patience or whatever the others value. the message they send is this:  'until i feel you have repaid me for the wrong done to me, you will not have my acceptance'.  if we go back to our definition, we can see that the element missing from this scenario is cancellation of the debt.  persons who refuse to forgive refuse to cancel the debt.

THE REAL LOSER
a person who has an unforgiving spirit is always the real loser, much more so than the one against whom the grudge is held. this is easy to see when we take a closer
18  look at the things most people withhold from those they feel have wronged them. unforgiveness, by its very nature, prevents individuals from following through on many of the specifics of the Christian life and practically necessitates that they  walk by the flesh rather than by the Spirit.
think about your own experience for a moment. think back to the last time someone really hurt you or wronged you or took something that belonged to you, whether it was a possession or an opportunity.
immediately following the incident, did you feel like running out and doing something kind for the person or did you feel like retaliating?  did you consider responding in gentleness or did you think about letting loose with some well-chosen words? did you feel like giving in and accepting the situation or did you feel like fighting for your 'rights'?
if you were honest, you probably identified more with the latter option in each case. these are the normal responses to being hurt or taken advantage of. but think of these responses in light of what paul says and you will begin to understand why an improper response to injury automatically impairs a person's walk with God.
'but the fruit of the spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law...if we live by the spirit, let us also walk by the spirit.  galatians 5.22-3,25
in a broad sense paul's list here includes all the things we naturally want to hold hostage from the people who have hurt us. we rarely want to give our love to individuals
19  who have hurt us. we certainly have no joy or peace when others have injured us in some way. we are not generally patient with or kind to people who have wronged us. we could go right down the list.
paul accurately describes the responses of the unforgiving person:
'now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are...enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes,  dissensions, factions, envying, ...and things like these, of which i forewarn you just as I have forewarned you that those who practice such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. galatians 5.19-21
an unforgiving spirit prevents a person from being able to walk consistently in the Spirit. the only choice is to walk according to the flesh. the consequences of such a life are devastating and paul discusses what will happen:
'do not be deceived, god is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap. for the one who sows to his own flesh shall from the flesh reap CORRUPTION, but the one who sows to the Spirit shall from the Spirit reap eternal life. galatians 6. 7-8
the corruption paul mentions has nothing to do with hell. he is talking about the consequences on this earth. if a person-believer or nonbeliever-makes decisions according to the impulses and desires of the flesh, the
20   result will always be corruption-a wrecked and ruined life. those persons who have not come to grips with the concept if forgiveness have by the very nature of unforgiveness set themselves up to walk according to the flesh. when that happens, they are losers every time. by withholding patience, kindness, gentleness, self-control and the rest, the individual is held hostage by the flesh and , thus, is the ultimate loser.

A CONSUMING CORRUPTION
the destructive nature of an unforgiving spirit is such that it is not limited to one relationship. resentment and other negative feelings spill over into other relationships. this is the second reason a person with an unforgiving spirit loses out in life.
unfortunately, people are rarely aware when hostility from one relationship affects their ability to get along with others. so they try and try-unsuccessfully-to work out their differences with others, never recognizing the real source of the problem. once they tire of trying to change, they excuse their insensitivity as part of their personality and expect people to 'work around' them emotionally speaking. they develop a take-me-or -leave-me-but-don't-try-to-change-me attitude and in the process they hurt people they love the most.
i see this spillover most often in marital relationships. when a husband and a wife come in for marriage counseling, i begin by asking about their relationships with their parents.  almost without fail, one of them feels some bitterness or resentment toward a parent (or parents). sometimes both of them have these feelings. oftentimes the root of their marriage problems is found in some hostility they have been hauling around, sometimes since childhood.
21  in almost every case, the counselees have a legitimate complaint; they have really been wronged by their parents. but their inability or unwillingness to forgive ends up hurting them, not their parents!

THE REJECTION CONNECTION

the third reason a person with an unforgiving spirit loses out in life is closely tied to the other reasons we've just discussed. when a person is wronged in some way, whether in marriage, business, friendship or some other relationship, rejection occurs. the classic case would be when a guy breaks up with his girl friend because he has found another girl. in her struggle with rejection the girl swears she will never trust another male.
 it is easy to see where hurt resulted from rejection. but if we plug this concept into other sets of circumstances, we can see it holds true in every case where forgiveness is needed. the following incident, which set my son and me at odds for years, illustrates how an unforgiving spirit has feelings of rejection at its roots.
when andy was about14, he discovered he had some musical talents. he began spending a great deal of time playing the piano, primarily by ear. that meant a great deal of pounding chords with very little melody. to me, it sounded all the same.
one day on my way upstairs i stuck my head in the living room and said, 'Andy, is that all you know?' to my uninformed ear, it sounded as if he had been playing the same song for hours! he immediately stopped playing. and he never played for me again. he would wait until my wife and I would leave the house and then he would spend hours practicing and practicing. i began hearing from others what a fine pianist andy was, but i never heard another sound from the piano in the living room.
22  some years later - when andy was in his 20s - our conversation turned toward his music. he gave me his version of what happened in the living room that afternoon, and he confessed that he had resented me from that day on. why? it really was not a big deal to me. i did not mean anything serious by what I said. but to andy, as a teenager, what i communicated was this: 'i do not accept you or your music'.
he was too young to understand that my comment was directed at his music, not at him as my son. and I was too insensitive to understand that the budding young artist saw little distinction between his work and his personhood. and so i crushed him; and he held it again me. by andy's won admission, the resentment he held in his heart toward me spilled over into other relationships in his life, primarily those having to do with authority.
what i want you to understand is that the cause of his resentment was perceived rejection. i say 'perceived' because i did not intend to reject him. his response, however, was the same as if it had been intentional.

LOST AND FOUND

after years of listening to people recount how they have been hurt and mistreated by parents, spouses, kids, employers and even pastors, i am convinced that at the beginning of each story is an experience that has been interpreted as rejection.  as the rejection evolves into an unforgiving spirit and eventually into bitterness, it takes a terrible toll. the person is left with a deep sense of emptiness, an inner sense that something is missing. consequently, the individual seeks to gain what has been lost-and almost always in the context of
23  relationships that are unrelated. let me give an example to illustrate.
 a counselor i know told me the following story. he said a father brought his daughter in for counseling after the father learned she had recently had an abortion. as the father began conveying his concern about the spiritual welfare of his daughter, it became apparent to my friend that the girl deeply resented her father. it was also clear that the daughter felt no remorse about what she had done and she frankly did not want to be there.
she paid no attention to anything being said until the counselor began to explain the usual sequence of events that leads a young girl to become sexually active. then he described what a father-daughter relationship should be like:  how a father should spend time with his daughter, how he should show her proper affection and praise her for her character and accomplishments. he explained that when a father loves his daughter, she does not feel compelled to look for love the way his daughter had.
before he could finish what he was saying, the girl interrupted. looking at her father, she said, 'you never loved me that way! you never spent time with me! you never listened to anything i had to say!'
then to the shock of my friend, she turned to him and said, 'i have never had love the way you described it, but I am willing to give anything to get it'. as she spoke, she slowly slid her skirt up several inches.
an extreme example? maybe, but not unrealistic. some people will do to almost any extreme to find what they have lost through intentional or unintentional rejection. people harboring unresolved resentment can feel driven to explore all kinds of avenues-usually ones that are not in keeping with the christian life.

THE WAITING GAME

24  there is a fourth reason an unforgiving spirit can devastate a life. since the person with the unforgiving spirit is usually waiting for the other person to make restitution, a great deal of time may go by. during this time, fleshly patterns of behavior and incorrect though processes develop. as I mentioned before, other relationships are damaged. even after an unforgiving spirit is corrected the side effects can take years to deal with especially in the area of relationships.
the irony of the situation is this: by refusing to forgive and by waiting for restitution to be made, individuals allow their personal growth and develop0ment to hinge on the decision of others they dislike to begin with. they allow themselves to be held hostage. they say, 'if he apologizes'.  'if she comes back to me'. 'if he rehires me'. 'if they invite me'.  they play the game of waiting for others to make the first move. in the meantime they allow an unforgiving spirit to weave its way into the total fabric of their lives.
another ironic element is that sometimes the person who has done the wrong has no idea anything is wrong. a senior in the high school department of our church had a good relationship with my son who was serving as youth pastor at the time. andy began to notice that kim was not as friendly as she had been and that she became less and less involved in the youth department. he would make a point to speak to her, but his kindness was rarely returned.
after several months went by, he took the youths skiing. it so happened that late one evening on the trip kim approached andy and said she needed to talk. she began
25  by apologizing for her attitude. she admitted she had been hurt by andy and she had been holding something he said to her against him for some time. they she asked him if he knew what he had said that hurt her so badly. andy thought and thought and came up with nothing
she looked surprised, reprimanded him for his insensitivity and said, 'several months ago, i spoke to you in sunday school and told you our family had just bought a new pet'.
andy still drew a blank.
she continued, 'you asked me what we got and i told you it was a bird. do you remember what you said then?
at that point andy remembered the conversation as well as his response to the news that her family had acquired a bird. 'yes, he said, i do remember. i told you birds were messy and asked why you didn't get something more useful like a dog'.
andy immediately apologized and his friendship with kim was restored. unfortunately, months were wasted because she would not deal with her hurt and he did not know he had done anything.
a great deal of the hurt and rejection we face is unintentional. the seeming lack of concern of the part of those who hurt us is often not an attempt on their part to be insensitive.

SOME CHOOSE TO LOSE

from what we've examined..I hope you clearly understand this: a person how harbors unforgiveness always loses. regardless of how wrong the other person may have been, refusing to forgive means reaping corruption in life. and that corruption begins in one relationship
26  including the relationship with god and works its way into all the rest.

holding on to hurt is like grabbing a rattlesnake by the tail; you are going to be bitten. as the poison of bitterness works its way through the many facets of your personality, death will occur - death that is more far reaching than your physical death, for it has the potential to destroy those around you as well.

MAKING THE PLUNGE

have you been hurt/ has somebody, somewhere in your past, rejected you in such a way that you still hurt when you think about it? do you become critical of people in your past the minute their names are mentioned? did you leave home as a child or a college student with great relief that you were leaving, swearing you would never return?
have you worked hard all your life not to become like your parents? are there people in your past upon whom you would enjoy taking revenge? have you made a pastime out of scheming about how you could get back at them or embarrass them publicly? were you abused as a child? maybe even molested? did you suffer through your parents' divorce as a child?
were your parents taken from you when you were very young?

were you forced by circumstances to pursue a different career from the one you originally wanted to pursue?  were you unable to attend the school of your choice because of financial reasons?  were you pushed out of a job opportunity by a greedy friend? were you promised things by your employer that never came about?

if you answered yes to any of these questions, you may be on the brink of being set free from a bondage
27  that you did not even know was keeping you a victim. you may be about to understand for the first time why you act the way you do in certain circumstances and why you cannot seem to control your temper. you may be on the verge of receiving the God-given insight you need to restore your war-torn home - this time for good.
whatever your situation, whatever has happened in your past, remember that you are the loser if you do not deal with an unforgiving spirit. and the people around you suffer, too.
i am writing so that you may be set free. in the process you may experience some pain. in some instances, it may be pain you have worked for years to avoid. yet that pain is necessary for healing to take place.
it is my prayer that you will read each chapter carefully and prayerfully. it is my goal to bring old truths to bear on the damaging experiences of your life. and in doing so, i hope to give the Holy Spirit an opportunity to make you whole.

2.17.2016 JOHN WESLEY by arnold lunn (1929)

53...before long,the women began to quarrel  and Wesley tried to make peace. his technique of reconciliation was original. he insisted on telling Mrs. Hawkins exactly what Mrs. Welch had said about her and in telling ..Welsh exactly wherein she had failed to meet with ..Hawkins's approval.
W always practised absolute frankness and believed in telling people what he thought about them and what other people thought about them. there would of course, be less scandalmongering if everybody followed his example. malignant gossip is only possible because the scandalmonger is protected from reprisals by the convention that confidences should be respected. but why should A be allowed to make remarks detrimental to B without B being given an opportunity of refuting those criticisms and of cross examining the man who made them? this was the principle on which j W acted throughout his life. 'Openness' was a quality to which he attached supreme importance. transparently hones himself, he suffered from a constitutional inability to keep a secret. many years later he remarked to a friend, 'if I go to America, I must do a thing which I hate as bad as i hate the devil' 'what is that?' he was asked. 'I must keep a secret'. ..

93  the prophets have often been men of one formula.  they pass through a phase of doubt and despair and suddenly the heavens open and in a blinding flash of illumination they discover the clue to the crossword puzzle of life. thenceforwards, all is plain and clear. in moments of doubt the magic formula is repeated. the one sin for which there is no forgiveness is to cast doubt on the infallibility of the formula.
with W it was otherwise, he accepted, as we shall see, justification by faith; but he was a true child of his century, a century which expected Christianity to prove its case at the Bar of Reason. his temperament was empirical. he could never rest satisfied with a mere formula without continuing to subject it to the test of experiment. and so he was always modifying and transforming his views. to Luther, justification by faith was a doctrine with no round edges. it was as hard and angular as a proposition in Euclid. to W, it was an elastic formula, less a solution than a clue which might guide him to the solution for which he sought....
W was a genius and it is the privilege of genius is to make its own rules

133...to a friend who charged him with invading other men's parishes and meddling with souls that did not
134  belong to him, W replied in a letter which contains the famous phrase 'i look upon the world as my parish'.
'God in scripture commands me according to my power to instruct the ignorant, reform the wicked, confirm the virtuous. man forbids me to do this in another's parish; that is, in effect to do it at all: seeing i have now no parish of my won, nor probably ever shall. whom then shall I hear: God or Man?...I look upon the world as my parish; thus far, I mean, that, in whatever part of it I am, I judge it meet, right and my bounden duty to declare unto all that are willing to hear the glad tidings of salvation'.

nothing succeeds like success. had W failed, his name might, perhaps, be mentioned in a footnote to a History of the English Church as an example of the evil effects of unbalanced egoism. but he did not fail, and his famous phrase has become immortal. a modern Wesleyan, however, who looked upon the world as his circuit would receive shorter shrift from the Methodist Conference than W ever received form the Bench of Bishops and one shudders to think what would happen to a doctor who announced that he regarded all the world as his practice.

135  he believed that his work would supplement the work of the Church of England, and he imposed on his Societies restrictions which his more extreme followers considered entirely unnecessary, in order that the itinerant preachers would not clash with the parish priests. in all parishes during his lifetime and in many parishes for at least a century after W died, the hour of the Methodist services was deliberately fixed to permit Methodists to attend both
Church and Chapel.W ordained that the Methodist services should be in his own words 'essentially defective, for it seldom has the four great parts of public prayer. if the people but ours in the place of the Church we hurt them that stay with us and ruin them that leave us'.  three years before he died, he wrote, 'wherever there is any Church Service, I do not approve of any appointment at the same hour, because i love the Church of England and would assist, not oppose it, all i can'.

136..'there was, as W drily remarks, 'great expectation at Bath of what a noted man was to do to me there; and i was much entreated not to preach; because no one knew what might happen'.

in spite of Beau Nash, W preached to a much larger audience than he had expected, but was interrupted by n himself. W tells the story of their encounter in his Journal:
I told then plainly, the Scripture had concluded them all under sin; -high and low, rich and poor, one with another. many of them seemed a little surprised and were sinking apace into seriousness, when their champion appeared, and coming close to me, asked by what authority i did these thins. I replied, 'by the authority of Jesus Christ, conveyed to me by the (now) Archbishop of Canterbury, when he laid hands upon me and said, 'Take thou authority to preach the Gospel'.  He said, 'This is contrary to Act of Parliament: this is a conventicle'. I answered, ' Sir, the conventicles mentioned in that Act (as the preamble shows) are seditious meetings: but this is not such; here is no shadow of sedition; therefore it is not contrary to the Act'. He replied,
137  'I say it is: and besides, you preaching frightens people out of their wits'. 'Sir, did you ever hear me preach?' 'no'.  'how then can you judge of what you never heard?' 'Sir, by common report'.  'Common report is not enough. Give me leave, Sir, to ask, Is not your name Nash?' 'My name is Nash'.  'Sir, I dare not judge of you by common report:  I think it is not enough to judge by'.  here he paused awhile and, having recovered himself, said, 'I desire to know what this people comes here for: on which one replied, 'Sir, leave him to me: let an old woman answer him. You, Mr. Nash, take care of your body; we take care of our souls; and for the food of our souls we come here. '  He replied not a word, but walked away.

the well know story of the second encounter between N and W is not recorded in W's Journal. they are supposed to have met on a crowded pavement in Bath. ..N glared at W and would not move. ' I never make way for a fool..'I always do, replied W quietly as he stepped off into the street.


138  the Bishop's prejudice against W was, as i have shown, largely due to the reports which he had received of extraordinary happenings among W's congregation. there was, indeed, so excuse for the Bishop. W's journal records a whole succession of these incidents. 'at Weavers' Hall, 7 or 8 persons were constrained to roar aloud while the sword of the spirit was dividing them asunder'. people swooned, sunk down on the ground as if dead, groaned, shrieked and trembled in every limb. a domestic servant remained in a trance like condition, as if possessed and was so affected that she did  not recover properly for 14 hours. her master dismissed here saying, 'he would have none in the house who had received the Holy Ghost'.  this was, of course, very wrong of him, but the 'pretending to extraordinary revelations' is not only a 'very horrid thing' but also a very inconvenient thing in a domestic servant.
W's published sermons certainly supply no clue to these distressing incidents. his sermons are essentially sober and calm, for no man disliked more intensely or rebuked more severely, the technique of the hot gospel type of revivalist.  indeed, had people groaned and shrieked during Whitefield's sermons, one would have had far less cause for surprise. but no one was 'constrained to roar aloud' when Whitefield preached, a fact which appears to have distressed him. for it was clearly injured vanity which prompted his letter to W in which he voiced his disapproval of those convulsions, while hastening to emphasise the fact that he would have had no difficulty in provoking them, had he so desired. 'honoured Sir, he wrote, 'I cannot think it right in you to
139  give so much encouragement to those convulsions which people have been thrown into under your ministry. were i to do so, how many would cry out every night? i think it is tempting God to require such signs'.

the frequency of these scenes was grossly exaggerated by common report and one is glad to not that they steadily diminished during the course of W's ministry. Charles Wesley had to endure similar interruptions until he hit upon a very simple device for putting an end to these fits. He says:
'many, no doubt, were, at our first preaching struck down, both soul and body, into the depth of distress. their outward affections were easy to be imitated. many counterfeits I have already detected. today one who came from the ale house drunk, was pleased to fall into a fit for my entertainment and beat himself heartily.  I thought it a pity to hinder him; so instead of singing over him, as had been often done, we left him to recover at his leisure. another, a girl, as she began to cry i ordered her to be carried out. her convulsion was so violent as to take away the sue of her limbs till they laid and left her without the door. then immediately she found her legs and walked off. some very unstill sisters, who always took car to stand near me and tried which could cry loudest, since i had them removed out of my sight have been as quiet as lambs. the firs night I preached here half my words were lost through their outcries. last night, before I began, I gave public notice that whosoever cried so as to drown my voice should, without any man hurting or judging them, be gently carried to the farthest corner of the room. but my porters had no employment the whole night; yet the lord was with us, mightily convincing of sin and of righteousness'.

W's views on these strange happenings varied
140  from time to time. on the whole, he was inclined to believe that their origin was supernatural, but he was never very dogmatic on this point.  'I relate just what I saw, he says.  'some of the circumstances seem to go beyond the ordinary course of nature'.
W, of course, was not so foolish as to consider these happenings as evidence of supernatural approval of his evangelical labours. he may have emancipated himself from the attitude of dark suspicion with which the eighteenth century regarded all unusual emotional states, as he insisted that the nature and value of an emotional state could only be gauged by the subsequent and permanent effects, if any, on a man's character and life.
a notorious sinner shrieking on the floor intrigued W not a little, but it was not the momentary convulsions, however striking, but the subsequent change of life, if any, which really impressed him. W believed in the possibility of sudden conversion, not because he had witnessed a scene such as this, but because he had taken the trouble to follow up his converts and to keep in personal contact with them. his letter to his brother Samuel written at an earlier stage of his ministry expressed very clearly much the same views as those which inclined him at a later date to believe in the supernatural origin of these fits.
'let any judge of it as they please. but that such a change was then wrought appears not from their shedding tears only or sighing or singing psalms, as your poor correspondent did by the woman of Oxford, but from the whole tenor of their life, till then many ways wicked; form that time holy, just and good.
'saw you him that was a lion till then and is now a lamb; he that was a drunkard, but now exemplarily sober: the whoremonger that was, that now abhors the very
141  lusts of the flesh? these are my living arguments for what i assert, that God now, as aforetime, gives remission of sins and the gift of the holy Ghost, which may be called visions'...
142  the effect of John's sermons was reinforced by Charles W's hymns. it was a wonderful chance which brought together in the same movement John W , with his genius for leadership and Charles
W, with his genius for poetry. more than 6,000 hymns are attributed to Charles..and these include many of the most popular hymns in the English language, such as 'Jesus, Lover of my soul', 'Hark, the herald Angels sing', ...'O for a thousand tongues to sing'.
John W did not write many original hymns, but he had a genius for translation and his translations from the German owe at least as much to the translator as to their original author.
before 1737, the Church of England had no hymn book. the psalms, metrically rendered by Tate and Brady, were sung in Church, but there were no hymn books.
after the Restoration, it was the Non-conformists who revived hymnody. the first hymn book of the Congregationalists appeared in 1696, and among its contributors were Doddridge and Dr. Watts, who share with
143  Charles W the glory of being the greatest hymn writers in the English language.
the first hymn book for the Anglican communion was a hymn book drawn up by John W  in 1737 for his parishioners in georgia. 'consequently, writes Mr. Sydney Dimond, the congregational singing, which the Ws had learned from the Moravians, appealed to the people with all the attractiveness of complete novelty. the hymns stimulated curiosity and helped to create the attitude of wonder, surprise and astonishment among those by whom they were heard for the first time...the fact that the whole congregation could take part in singing made the hymn a means for the expression of the violent emotions aroused by the revival experiences; and at the same time the emotion was intensified by its expression. thus it is that 'the hymn is especially valuable for both suggestion and auto-suggestion'. while singing lustily in rhythmic phrases the ideas and sentiments which the Ws desired to instill into him, each member of the congregation suggested them to himself in the technical meaning of that phrase. and at the same time he was passing on the suggestion to his neighbour. 'the whole audience thus acts upon each individual in the audience and so acts and reacts upon itself, thus spreading the desired suggestion by geometrical progression'. consider, for example, the revival value of these verses sung by a large congregation:
'For you and for me
He prayed on the tree:
The prayer is accepted, the sinner is free.

that sinner am I,
who on Jesus rely,
and come for the pardon "God cannot deny'.

144  the dramatic passage from the second to the first person identifies the poet with the audience and by a perfect combination of suggestion and auto-suggestion the hymn conveyed from one individual to another an immediate and vital experience'.
mr. rattenbury draws attention to the power of movement which Charles W's hymns possess. 'they march, they dance, they fly...who but a Charles W would have thought of setting the solemn theme of the crucifixion to a jig? and yet,

'O Jesus, my hope,
for me offered up,
who with clamour pursued Thee to Calvary's top',
is the very metre W loved to use for his most exuberant hymns'.

charles W said that he did not see why the devil should have all the best tunes. he therefore borrowed some of the most popular tunes of the day and married them to hymns of his own composing. in order to convert sailors whom he heard singing 'Nancy Dawson',  a musical hall song of the day, charles W immediately wrote a hymn to the tune of ''Nancy Dawson'.

J W was by no means an indulgent critic of his brother's writings. he pointed out their defects with his customary 'openness'. of an earlier collection of charles's verses, he wrote, 'some are bad, some are mean and some are most excellently good'.

'his least praise was his talent for poetry'. thus wrote JW in the Minutes of Conference which recorded Charles W's death. the laconic phrase must,


148  Methodism was cradled in controversy and would probably never have survived had not JW taken a firm stand on two great issues. had W surrendered to the doctrine of stillness as preached by the Moravians or to the doctrine of election as preached by the Calvinists, methodism would in all human probablility, have died with its founder.
the first crisis was precipitated by Whitefield's departure for america on aug. 18, `739. Charles and JW exchanged places. C went to bristol and J returned to london to find the fetter lane society in a critical condition.
Molther, a moravian pastor from jena, had made many converts to the engaging doctrine of stillness. those who had not received the gift of faith were urged to do nothing, to possess their souls in quietness and not to attempt to force the hand of god by making use of the means of grace, such as the Sacraments.
W argued at length both with Molther and Spangenberg, but to no avail. the moravians in the Fetter lane Society disliked the aggressive tactics of the Wesleys. their missionary enterprise offended them, for they held that the spiritual elite did not need to be hounded into salvation. they should just sit quiet waiting 'in stillness' until they received the gift of faith. again, they resented the fact that the Ws had insensibly assumed the leadership of the fetter lane society. they accused
149  the Ws of arrogance and of egoism. W's efforts to heal the breach were of no avail. the meetings of the Society, as he complained, were ruined by 'a harsh, dry, heavy, stupid spirit'.

meanwhile, W was losing ground in the Society. in the middle of July, 1740, he was informed that he could no longer preach in the fetter lane room. on the following sunday, W attended the love feast of the fetter lane society and read a paper in which he summarised the points at issue between him and the moravians. he concluded with these words: 'I have borne with you long, hoping you would turn. but as i find you more and more confirmed in the error of your ways, nothing now remains but that i should give you up to God. you that are of the same judgment, follow me.'
it was just as will that these remarks were made at a love feast. otherwise, one feels, they might have given offence.
18 or 19 members withdrew with John W and fortunately there was another society waiting to receive them. towards the end of 1739, W had been asked to meet a little group of religious people weekly in prayer. he thus formed the first of those united Societies which were to be the units of the methodist organization.
the weather that winter had been unusually cold and W, who had been preaching in the open air, gratefully accepted the suggestion of two gentlemen, then unknown to him, that he should preach in a disused empty building, called the Foundery, near Moorfields.
this building had been used for casting cannon for the government and had been partially wrecked by an accidental explosion. W eventually bought the Foundery for 115 pounds and raised by loans and subscriptions
150  another 700 pounds which was required to transform the structure into a Meeting house.

the foundery stood on windmill hill near finsbury square. the chapel, when complete, accommodated 1500 people. the men were divided from the women, as was the custom of the Primitive Church. W tells us that none were suffered to call any place their own, but the firstcomer sat down first. they had no pews and all the benches for rich and poor were of the same construction.
the foundery was the cradle of london methodism, and it was here that W began to preach in 1739. above the chapel, apartments were fitted up for W's use and it was in these apartments that his mother lived for the last years of her life and it was there that she died.
the foundery was the headquarters of methodism until the City Road Chapel was opened in 1778.

the breach with the moravians was far less serious in its consequences than the breach with Whitefield. Wh was a Calvinist and the controversy between Wh and W was destined to split methodism into two camps.
calvinism is one of the unsolved problems of history. it is the duty of the historian to discover the root principles which have induced intelligent men to yield passionate loyalty to creeds which later ages have rejected, but this duty is nowhere more  difficult than in the case of Cal.  one is, of course, tempted to represent Cal in the most favourable light if only to placate the modern fashion of universal toleration. the religious historian, whatever may be his theme, from the Spanish Inquisition to the philosophy of C , is sure to be told
151  that he lacks historical imagination if he records a hostile verdict against any institution, however vile or against any superstition, however stupid.  he will be told that his facts are correct, but that he lacks sympathy with the past and that he has no sense of atmosphere.

one can argue about facts, but not about atmosphere. the 'atmosphere' line of defence for the indefensible was thoroughly exploited by W's Moravian opponents. W, who believed in logic and reason and who enjoyed the stately progress of debate from premise to conclusion expressed his impatient contempt for opponents who retreated behind a mist of verbiage.
'I do not admire the manner wherein they treat their opponents. i cannot reconcile it either to love, humility, or sincerity. is utter contempt, or settled disdain, consistent with love or humility?  and can it consist with sincerity to deny any charge which they know in their conscience is true? to say those quotations are unjust which are literally copies from their own books? to affirm their doctrines are misrepresented, when their own sense is given to their own words?  to cry, 'Poor man! He is quite dark! he is utterly blind! he knows nothing of our doctrines! though they cannot point out one mistake this blind man has made or confute one assertion he has advanced!'

the historian of religious movements should divide the beliefs which he attempts to criticise into three classes.  first, there are the beliefs which he himself considers to be true. secondly, there are the beliefs which he rejects, but which are defended by argument which compel, if not agreement, at least respect. thirdly, there are beliefs which seem to him both absurd and mischievous.
152  tolerance has its dangers and temptations no less than intolerance. to condone what is demonstrably evil is as bad as to condemn what is good.
Cal as a philosophy is absurd and contradictory and its ultimate effects on conduct are bound to be mischievous. i say 'ultimate' for these effects may take some time to appear.
the universe is fundamentally rational. grapes do not grow on bramble bushes.  an immoral philosophy will ultimately produce an immoral effect. the first prophets of a false philosophy may be unaffected, for their lives are still influenced by the traditions which they have inherited from the philosophy which they reject. materialism is a case in point. a moral machine is a contradiction in terms and according to materialists we are all machines governed by forces over which we have no control. the ultimate outcome of such a creed must be the breakdown of all moral restraint, a conclusion which the Victorian materialist repudiated with lively indignation. 'consider darwin or tyndall', urged the victorian agnostics, 'these men are not influenced by the hope of heaven or the fear of hell, but they do not take chorus girls down to brighton for the weekend. of course not, partly because they would never have survived the excruciating boredom of a weekend in such society and partly because they were living on the inherited capital of christian tradition. the victorian materialist was not consistent. he might poke fun at Gadarene swine, but the enthusiasm with which he set out to prove christianity a myth was no greater than his anxiety to preserve the moral code which was based on that myth. men are, in the main, more rational that the rationalists, and it is vain to expect them to retain the restrictions while rejecting the consolations of supernatural religion. it is indeed, difficult to understand the mental attitude of those
153  'who cannot have the faith and will not have the fun'.
a code which is based on a creed will not long survive the rejection of that creed. russia, for instance, has formally rejected, not only christianity, but also that 'bourgeois morality' which derives its sanction from christianity. let a bolshevist, writing in an official bolshevist paper, describe the result:
'our young people, writes madame smidovich in pravda' have certain principles in affairs of love. all those principles are governed by the belief that the nearer you approach to extreme and, as ti were, animal primitiveness, the more communistic you are...every student, man or girl, considers it as axiomatic that in affairs of love they should impose the least possible restraint on themselves'.
madam smidovich, so mr. rulop-miller assures us in his brilliant and impassioned study of bolshevism, 'quotes cases which she declares to be typical: for example, one day two 16 year old fathers appeared before the amazed officials of the Foundling Hospital with a 'collective chile'...in this heavy sexual atmosphere suicides abound'.
so with Cal which must ultimately lead to antinomianism. frounde's defence is based on a fallacy:
'I am going to ask you to consider how it came to pass that if Cal is indeed the hard and unreasonable creed which modern enlightenment declares it top be, it has possessed such singular attractions in past times for some of the greatest men that ever lived. and how-being, as we are told, fatal to morality, because it denies free will-the first symptom of its operation, wherever it established itself, was to obliterate the distinction between sins and crimes and to make the moral law the rule of life for Sates as well as persons. i shall ask you, again, why, if it be a creed of
154  intellectual servitude, it was able to inspire and sustain the bravest efforts ever made by man to break the yoke of unjust authority'.

the answer to froude's problem is quite simple. william the Silent and cromwell are no more the products of calvinism than darwin, tydall and H
huxley are the products of materialism. all these men were great in spit of, rather than because of the creeds they held. Cal is Theism plus determinism. materialism is atheism plus determinism. both creeds deny free will and make man a machine, thereby reducing morality to a farce. the ultimate (but not immediate) result of any creed based on the denial of free will must be the replacement of moral endeavor by fatalistic despair

'I do not think, writes a distinguished critic, 'that you are quite fair to the philosophy underlying Cal. no one would suggest that Deism is absurd, and Cal is Deism plus religious emotion, reverence and fear'.  perhaps, but Cal is also Deism plus the belief in eternal punishment. Cal is not absurd simply because Calvin denied free will; for the freedom of the will is not a self-evident proposition. Cal is absurd because Calvin tried to reconcile determinism with the existence of an all-loving god who dealt out in arbitrary fashion infinite rewards and infinite penalties.
superficial criticism of a creed is usually easy to rebut. a clever Catholic can make rings round the average protestant who embarks on criticism of catholic doctrines such as Papal infallibility or the nature of Indulgences, doctrines which at first sight appear difficult to
155  defend. but in the case of Cal, it is the first facile criticism which remains unanswered.
W summed up Cal in less than 50 words.  'the sum of all is this: 1 in 20  (suppose) of mankind are elected; 19 in 20 are reprobated. the elect shall be saved, do what they will; the reprobate shall be damned, do what they can. Reader, believe this or be damned. witness my hand'.
try to sum up catholicism, buddhism or theosophy in 500 words and you will find your task beyond your powers. but W's 50 word summary of Cal does full justice to the fundamental tenets of Cal, even though there may be secondary aspects of Calvin's teaching which merit praise.
if you study the apologetics of most creeds you will understand how wise men have found it possible to accept a creed which your reason rejects. but if you read through Calvin's institutes from end to end, as the present writer has done, you will be no nearer understanding the paradox of his mind or the fascination of his creed than when you tu4ned the first page. the wall of an asylum separates you and if Calvin is outside that wall, your place is the padded cell.
it is impossible to caricature Cal. 'we believe, though it is incomprehensible, that it is just to damn such as do not deserve it'. thus beza, Calvin's great lieutenant. no vulgar misrepresentation of beza's views could be more damaging that his own simple credo.
or again, consider Calvin's reply to those who argue that man must be free to repent, seeing that God offers His grace to sinners.  God would not mock the sinner with false hopes had he decreed his eternal damnation. 'God speaketh to them, Calvin replied,  that they may be the deafer; He gives light to them that they may be
156  the blinder; he offers instruction to them that they may be more ignorant; and uses the remedy that they may NOT be healed'.
to represent your own creed in the worst possible light is an effective method for silencing the opposition. there is nothing left to be said.

John Wesley had wrestled with the nightmare of Cal during his undergraduate days. he was much helped by his mother's letters, lucid, well reasoned and admirably expressed. he read them and was convinced. but even without their aid, it was humanly certain that W would never have become a Cal. he had too overpowering a conviction of the universal love of god.
Whitefield, during his first visit to america, cam under the influence of Jonathan Edwards, that great apostle of Cal and it was as a convinced Cal that Wh returned to england. W was one of the least controversial of men and he did his best to avoid this dangerous topic. he was, however, forced against his will to define his own position.  an ardent predestinarian accused him of not daring to preach the whole truth, and based his attack on the fact that W never referred to the doctrine of predestination in his sermons.
W could no longer avoid the challenge.
on april 29,1739, he preached his great sermon on Free Grace, a sermon which was a vigorous attack on Cal and contains one trenchant passage:
'this is the blasphemy clearly contained in the horrible decree of predestination!  and here i fix my feet. on this i join issue with every assertor of it. you represent God as worse than the devil; more false, more cruel, more unjust. but you say you will prove it by Scripture? Hold!
157  what will you prove by Scripture? that god is worse than the devil? it cannot be. whatever that Scripture proves, it never can prove this; whatever its true meaning be, this cannot be its true meaning...it cannot men, whatever it means besides, that the God of truth is a liar. let it mean what it will, it cannot mean that the Judge of all the world is unjust. no scripture can mean that god is not love or that His mercy is not over all his works;  that is, whatever it prove beside, no scripture can prove predestination'.
this passage is interesting, not only for the views which it expresses, but also for the light which it throws on W's mental processes. 'no scripture can men that God is not love'.  in other words Scripture must be interpreted by personal experience. (note: seems like an unsubstantiated leap by Lunn...further, no proof is given for what appears a personal opinion...is it...?) the final touchstone of truth is the inner witness. the keynote to W's religious experience was the discovery that God is love and anything which contradicted that discovery must be false. to make personal experience the touchstone of dogma comes perilously near that enthusiasm which W condemned. but in one sense, at least, most religious people are enthusiasts. they may take their official belief from the Church, but the beliefs which give reality to their inner life are based on personal experience...
159  Whitefield wrote W..'dear brother W, what mean you by disputing in all your letters? may God give you to know yourself; and then you will not plead for absolute perfection of call the doctrine of election a 'doctrine of devils'. my dear brother, take heed. see you are in Christ a new creature. beware of a false peace. strive to enter in at the strait gate (note: luke 13.24...and others seem to fall between Whitefield and Wesley..comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable)
162  W believed in hitting the ball, not the man. he was seldom stung into making a personal retort. he mad no allusions, direct or indirect, in his sermons to Wh or any other Calvinist.... Whitefield's partisans did their best to envenom the wound. Wh's letter (note: quoted above)...was printed without Wh's permission.
163...fortunately, the breach between W  and Wh did not last long. they agreed to differ and though their disagreement inevitably created a division which endures to this day, for the Calvinistic Methodists trace their descent to Wh, their
founder, the friendship between W and Wh was reestablished and endured till Wh's death, nearly 30 years later. this was greatly to the credit of both men.
Wh died on dec. 30, 1770, in america. in accordance with his dying wishes, John W was invited by the executors to preach the funeral sermon at the chapel in Tottenham Court Foad.
'if it be inquired, John W said, what was the foundation of this integrity or of his (Wh's ) sincerity, courage, patience and every other valuable and amiable quality, it is easy to give the answer...it was the love of God shed abroad in his heart by the Holy Ghost, which was given unto him, filling his soul with tender, disinterested love to every child of man. from this source arose that torrent of eloquence, which frequently bore down all before it from this, that astonishing force of persuasion, which the most hardened sinners could not resist. this it was, which often made his head as waters and his eyes as a fountain of tears. this it was, which enabled him to pour out his soul in prayer,
164  in a manner peculiar to himself, with such fulness and ease united together, with such strength and variety both of sentiment and expression'.


Chapter 14 - The Master Builder

166  young men, with Napoleonic ambitions, anxious to discover the secret of organizing and controlling vast undertakings, should study Henry Ford's Autobiography  and W's Journal.

Methodism, as an organized Society, may be sAid to date from the foundation of the Fetter Lane Society in 1738. 10 years passed and Methodist Societies had already spread over england, wales and ireland. at the conference in 1748 Methodism was divided into 9 great geographical divisions, each of which contained several flourishing Methodist societies, the main divisions being london, bristol, ireland, wales, staffordshire, cheshire, yorkshire and newcastle. each main division was further sub- divided into sub divisions and in many of these sub-divisions there were more than one Society...the result was achieved in spite of the persistent ill will of magistrates and the clergy and in spit of frequent attacks by the mob. in less than 10 years, W  had covered the face of england, ireland wales with his Societies. he ruled over these scattered Societies like an autocrat. his decisions were seldom disputed and never disputed with success.
even today, with all the modern advantages of quick communications, it would be almost impossible for one man to control societies distributed over three kingdoms.
167  in the 18th century the problem of control was infinitely more difficult for all practical purposes, dublin was further from london in the 18th century than new york is today. W crossed the irish channel no less than 50 times at first from chester, then from parkgate and finally, as the Dee silted up , from liverpool. again and again, he was delayed by calms and by unfavourable winds and he spent longer on the journey between london and dublin than a modern traveller would spend on the journey between london and bombay.
W must have failed, had he not possessed unlimited energy, a genius for administration and the power to impose his will on the vast scattered organization. he build up his organization on autocratic lines. he was never a democrat and never pretended to be a democrat and in this he resembled the founders of all great religious movements, mahomet, calvin, loyola, and in our own time, general booth.

it is said that W had very little originality. his organization was built up on ideas borrowed from other societies. this may be true and the details of Methodist organization may not have been original, but surely the result was original. the architect does not 'invent' his bricks, but his work as a whole may be original though every detail in that work is borrowed.
W had one sure sign of genius, the power to recognise at a glance the things that were worth imitating, adapting or borrowing . few men have been quicker at picking up anything good which happened to be lying around and few men have shown less conscience in adapting or borrowing the work of other men.
i think it is george moore who remarks that the great artists have never scrupled to borrow a good idea if they could thereby improve their own creations. joy in the thing created is the hallmark of the great artist, pride
168  in being able to claim full credit for the thing created is the distinguishing mark of the second rate. a dangerous, but amusing doctrine. if plagiarism be the hallmark of literary genius, W is sure of a place among the Immortals, for no man borrowed more freely and no man derived more enjoyment from bowdlerising, revising and adapting the work of other men...
but though W was shameless in the liberties which he took with the works of other men, he was most incensed if other writers ventured to tamper with his won and his brother's hymns...
169  W was not only quick to adopt what was good; he was always equally ready to discard what was bad. few religious leaders have shown more readiness to be guided by experience. W was a pragmatist. he treated theories, not as answers to problems, answers in which he could rest, but as instruments with which to hammer out the desired result. he was prepared to sacrifice any theory which cramped his evangelical activity. his prejudices against extemporary prayer were the first to be shed. he disliked field preaching, but he was converted by the test of practical results. 'what marvel, he writes, that the devil does not love field preaching. neither do i; i love a commodious room, a soft cushion, a handsome pulpit. but where is my zeal if i do not trample all this under foot in order to save souls?
W not only loved a commodious room and a soft cushion, he also loved discipline and order and disliked irregularities. every step on the road to schism cost him a pang. he did not like extemporary prayer, he did not like field preaching, he did not like appointing lay preachers and he did not like ordaining dr. coke. in all these cases, his sense of vocation triumphed over his ecclesiastical prejudices.
all this he was prepared 'to trample under foot in order to save souls'.
ordinary people, perhaps, are not called upon to criticise
170  their church or to decide when loyalty to the church is inconsistent with loyalty to God. 'my church righto or wrong'
'He never hints at the idea that His followers are destined to break away from Israel:  nor did they ever do so by any definite act of separation. during his life they were in the Jewish Church as the Wesleyans were once in the Church of England-a school of pietists, whose aim was to purify, not to abandon, their Church'.
many years before W opened his campaign, new life had been brought into the Church of England by the 'Religious Societies'. W no doubt hoped that the Methodist Societies would be equally successful in reviving the spirit of religion within the Church of England.
W had been much impressed by the Life of Ignatius Loyola, 'surely one of the greatest men..ever engaged in the support of so bad a cause. the Counter-Reformation may well have seemed 'a bad 171   cause' to W , but he can hardly fail to have been impressed by the services which the Jesuits rendered to the Church of Rome and no doubt he hoped that the Order which he had founded, for it was as an Order that he regarded the methodists, might prove equally effective in reviving the Church of England.
'W, writes Canon Overton, dearly loved the Church of England and when he varied from her at all in practice-(in doctrine he never knowingly varied from her)- it was because he thought he was justified in so doing by the customs of primitive times'.
W had no difficulty in discovering a primitive precedent for the origin of his own societies. these societies arose, as we have seen, from the natural desire of the new converts to be united more closely for mutual help and encouragement. W points out that those to whom the apostles preached were mostly jews or heathens. 'but as soon as any of them were so convinced of the truth, as to forsake sin and seek the gospel of salvation, they immediately joined them together, took an account of their names, advised them to watch over each other and met these 'catechumens' (as they were then called,) apart from the great congregation; that they might instruct, rebuke, exhort and pray with them and for them according to their several necessities.'
the Love Feasts corresponded to the Agapae and the Watch Nights to the Vigiliae of the Early Church and the visitors to the sick to the ancient deacons, 'for what', asks W, was phoebe the deaconess but such a visitor of the sick?'
it is easy to quote primitive precedent for the distinctive features of the quarterly meetings. at these meetings, W distributed tickets, which he compares to the commendatory letters mentioned by the apostles, to members whom he wished to retain in the Societies. 'these supplied us with a quiet and inoffensive method of removing any disorderly member. he has no new ticket at the quarterly visitation (for so often the tickets are changed) and hereby it is immediately known that he is no longer of the community'.
these tickets were much prized. Methodists often left instructions that their tickets should be buried with them, but more often they were handed down from father to son and a series of tickets proving long connexion with the methodist Societies was treasured no less than a certificate of limpieza issued by the Spanish Inquisition to those who could prove an uninterrupted descent from faithful Catholics who had never been penanced for heresy

i will spare the reader a detailed account of the methodist Constitution, but a brief sketch is necessary in order to appreciate W's administrative genius.
the original Fetter lane Society was divided into 'bands'. each 'band'consisted of not fewer than 5 nor more than 10 persons, who met weekly to confess their faults one to another and to pray for one another that they may be healed'. (note - James 5.16)
it is important to distinguish between the 'bands' and the classes, a distinction which is not always made very clear in methodist writings. long after the class meetings had become an integral part of methodism, the 'bands' remained a distinct institution. they constituted an inner ring, and exclusive order of very devout methodists. they were the Ironsides on whom W relied in a crisis. he mad the members of the 'bands' his counsellors and he
173  was accustomed to bring difficult cases before them for consideration.
in 1744, the methodists were arranged in the following groups, 'United Societies', 'Bands', 'Select Societies' and 'Penitents'.
the United Societies was the largest and least select group, for it merely consisted of 'awakened persons'.  the Bands were more select and 'the Select Societies' as its name implies, were really extremely exclusive. finally, there were the Penitents, who had mad 'shipwreck of their faith'.

but whereas the 'bands' were composed of the elect, every member of a Methodist society normally belonged to a class and the Class Meeting is an instance of W's quickness to recognise the latent tactical possibilities of every suggestion which was brought before him.
february 15,1742 is an important date in the history of Methodism. on that day, a Meeting was held in bristol to discuss the best method of liquidating the debt on the Meeting House. a certain Captain Foy, one of the many sea-going captains in the Society of Bristol, suggested that every member of the Society should contribute a penny a week. it was objected that many of the members were too poor to afford a weekly contribution. 'true, replied Captain Foy, then put 10 or 12 of them to me. let each of these give what they can weekly and i will supply what is wanting.'
the captain's proposal was accepted. it was agreed to divide the Bristol society into 'classes' and to appoint in each class a 'leader to collect the weekly contributions and to hand them over to the stewards. W appointed the leaders and assigned to each of them a class of about 12 members.
the penny collection for the relief of the poor, was
174  already in existence and as Mr. Simon points out, 'the novel feature of the captains's suggestion is its recognition of the principle that, in the methodist society, the richer members should make up the deficiency in a common fund which arises from the inability of the poorer members to contribute to it. that principle still governs the whole system of methodist finance'.
W was quick to discover that Captains Foy's plan had other virtues besides solving the financial problem at Bristol. shortly after the captain's scheme had been adopted, one of the class leaders reported to W that he had discovered a member of his class, on whom he had called for a contribution, 'in drink'. it flashed across W's mind that there was yet another role for the class leader. he could watch over the souls of his brethren, while extracting pennies from their pockets he could encourage the faint hearted, admonish the backsliders and report the impenitents to W.

W determined to try out this new experiment, not only in Bristol, but in London. it was becoming increasingly difficult for W to keep in touch with the 2000 members of his london society, scattered as they were between westminster and wapping. he realised that the reputation of Methodism depended on effective control, for Methodism was on trial and the jury consisted of a hostile and prejudiced public only too ready to exploit the shortcomings of individual methodists as an argument against Methodism in general. W, himself, was no longer able to support the entire pastoral care of the societies. it was a stroke of genius to transform the class leaders into a lay pastorate. the experiment proved as successful in london as it had proved in bristol and thenceforwards the class leaders became an integral part of the Methodist constitution.
before long, the class leaders discovered that it was
175  well nigh impossible to pay 12 weekly visits to the 12 members of their class. difficulties often arose because masters or mistresses, relatives or parents hostile to the Methodists prevented the invasion of their households by the class leaders. it was therefore decided that class members should meet together for an hour twice a week.  the class leaders were expected to present a report every 3 months to W on the spiritual condition of the class members appointed to their care.

W's journeys during the course of the next 40 years were undertaken in order to meet his class leaders, receive their reports and to give hem personal advice.
it is not difficult to understand the success of the class meetings. man is a social animal.  those who have never lacked friends will not find it easy to realise the loneliness of our great cities and the Methodists deserved to succeed  because they put into practice the christian ideal of brotherliness. they sought out the friendless and befriended them. the class meeting was, in effect, a club, a Travellers' Club whose members met twice a week to compare notes and to exchange experiences in their spiritual progress towards the new Jerusalem. lonely folk for whom nobody cared, were invited, nay urged, to talk about their souls. can one wonder that the class meeting succeeded, for it exploited the most universal, and the most human of failings-vanity.
consider a concrete case-jane Smith. jane is a maid-of-all-work. she is on the go for 15 hours a day and provided that she does her work in this world, neither her master nor her mistress very much cares what happens to her in the next. of course, Jane has been to church, but it would be idle to pretend that the portly gentleman  in the flowing gown, who reads a weekly sermon on the errors of the Deists or on the folly of enthusiasm, is interested in Jane as an individual. then one day, Jane
176  meets a methodist and is persuaded to accompany her to the Foundery and is drawn into the orbit of the Methodist Society. Jane's heart, like W's in aldersgate street, is strangely warmed, not perhaps by the doctrines which the methodists preached, but by the glow of that friendship which the Methodists practised.

if Methodism owes much of its success to the class meetings, it owes its very existence to the institution of the lay preacher.
John Cennick, whose hymns 'Children of the heavenly King' and 'Thou Dar Redeemer dying lamb' are still popular favourites, was the first lay preacher. he was a master at the kingswood school and he spoke and preached in public with W's approval as early as 1739. W, however, seems to have felt that his position as a teacher differentiated his case from that of other laymen. W certainly did not regard Cennick as a precedent for appointing other lay preachers.

early in 1740, w heard that a certain Thomas Maxfield, one of his converts, had been preaching before the Foundery Society. he was much alarmed and hurried to london, where he was met by his mother on his arrival. 'John, she said, take heed what you do with reference to that young man, for he is as surely called to preach as you are'. w was much impressed. he knew that his mother's devotion to the Church of England equalled his own and her view therefore, carried additional weight. he listened to Maxfield's preaching and exclaimed, 'it is the lord's doing. let Him do what seemeth good'. within the year, 20 lay preachers had been appointed.
177  there would have been fewer lay preachers, had all bishops been ready to help W as the good Dr. barnard, Bishop of Londonderry.  a little later Maxfield was ordained by ..barnard, who said to him, 'Sir, i ordain you to assist that good man, Mr. W, that he may not work himself to death.

the growth of Methodism rendered it necessary to provide a systematic arrangement of circuits and to appoint a preacher for each. every lay preacher had to begin as a 'local' before he was permitted to be an 'itinerant'. (note: 'journey'; traveling from place to place, especially on a circuit'.) the preacher who superintended the whole of a circuit was called 'the Superintendent'.
the temporal affairs of these Societies were the Ministers, Assistants, Stewards, leaders of the Bands, Leaders of the Classes, Visitors of the Sick, Schoolmasters and Home-keepers.
W soon realized that it was necessary to provide a governing body for the scattered Societies. he intended, during his lifetime to control any governing body he might find it necessary to create and unless some such organization was called into existence, the societies, as W foresaw, could hardly survive his death.
the Annual Conference, which is still the supreme governing body or Methodism, first met on June 25, 1744.
at this Conference, it was decided to invite from time to time such lay preachers as the Conference should decide to summons. this decision politely disguised the fact that it was W , rather than the Conference, who decided which lay preachers should be invited to attend.
178  'The Conference, as W wrote to an unruly subordinate, while I live is 'the preachers whom I invite to confer with me'.
a characteristic utterance...

Chapter 15 - Wesley's Generalship

179  W kept in personal touch with his preachers and with his class leaders, partly by his unending journeys and partly by correspondence. 'his short, sharp letters, writes Mr. Eayrs, ring like officers' orders'.
his intuition and his memory were seldom at fault. he knew exactly what his subordinates were worth, the work for which they were most and the work for which they were least suited. 'abstain from controversy, he writes to one of his lay preachers, 'indeed you have not a talent for it. you have an hones heart, but not a clear head'.
W never wasted a word. he had a simple, direct way of putting people right, which must have been exasperating for the victim but which makes his letters very amusing reading. there are, of course, many ways of telling people disagreeable truths and W seldom chose the gentlest. this was partly due to his early upbringing. he had been taught by his brothers and sisters to give hard blows without malice and to receive hard blows with resentment.
W, unlike many people who criticise freely and who preen themselves on their bluff candour, did not resent being criticised himself. in his description of Grace Murray, his last love, he mentions among her virtues that she was in the habit 'of telling me with all faithfulness and freedom if she thought anything amiss in my conduct'.
180  W, indeed, seldom resented honest criticism. Wh's letters to W have been quoted on a previous page. W was a distinguished Fellow of his college and many years the senior of the ex-servitor who addressed him with such patronising impertinence. 'Be humble; talk little; think and pray much'. W showed no signs of resenting this ill-timed advice.
'if anyone will convince me of my errors, he once wrote to an opponent, 'i will heartily thank him'. this, of course, reads like a conventional controversial gambit, but W meant what he said. indeed, he complained bitterly when people did not take him at his word. 'neither you nor John Jones have ever sent me your remarks upon that tract in the late volume of sermons. you are not kind. why will you not do all you can to make me wiser than i am?'
John W had a passion for 'openness'. he confessed that he hated keeping a secret and he was certainly incapable of keeping secret the view which he had formed about the shortcomings of his friends. but he expected his friends to be equally 'open' with him. he was always overjoyed if he discovered somebody who displayed the same 'absolute openness and unreserve in their dealings with him, which he habitually used in his relations to his fellow men. characteristic is his letter to the Reverend Henry Venn:
'having at length a few hours to spare, i sit down to answer your last, which was particularly acceptable to me, because it was wrote with so great openness. i shall write with the same. and herein you and i are just fit to converse together; because we both like to speak blunt and plain,  without going a great way round about. i shall likewise take this opportunity of explaining myself on
181  some other heads. i want you to understand me inside and out. then i say, Sic sum:Si placeo, utere'.
his plain, blunt, literary style was the result of his ruthless exploitation of time. to every moment of the day, from 4 AM when he rose until 10 PM when he retired, its appropriate task was allotted. the man who never wasted a minute could not afford to waste a word. inevitably he developed the habit of coming to the point at once and of telling his mind 'flat and plain without any preface or ceremony'. the following letter to a friend rings true:
'I bless God that you are not disgusted at the great plainness with which I wrote. indeed i know not but it might be termed roughness; which was owing partly to the pressure of mind i then felt and partly to my being straitened for time; otherwise i might have found softer expressions. i am thankful likewise for your openness; which obliges me to be open and unreserved and to say all i mean and that in the most simple manner, on each of the articles that lie before us'.
few people would be believed if they urged being 'straitened for time' as an excuse for 'roughness'.  but a man who makes a habit of rising at 4 AM may well be believed when he pleads that he has no leisure for 'courtly phrases'.
his abrupt style of course sometimes ave offence.judged, however, by literary rather than by social standards, it is precisely this curtness which is the great merit of his style.
it would be difficult, writes leslie stephen to find any letters more direct, forcible and pithy in expression. he goes straight to the mark without one superfluous flourish. he writes as a man confined within the narrow
182  limits of time and space, whose thoughts are so well in hand that he can say everything needful within those limits. the compression gives emphasis and never causes confusion'.
a young man learning to write could have no better tutor than W. Pope, i think, said that in writing the greatest art is the art to blot, to dispense, that is, with every redundancy, to aim at 'the utmost simplicity and plainness'.
here is an excellent example of emphasis due to compression. francis wolfe had been appointed second preacher in the Bristol circuit. six weeks passed and F W failed to put in an appearance. W wrote him a letter consisting of exactly 13 words: 'Franky, are you out of your wits? why are you not at bristol?
...the famous letter which he wrote to George Shadford is another example of masterly compression.
''Dear George, -the time is arrived for you to embark for America. you must go down to bristol, where you will meet with thomas rankin, captain webb and his wife.
I let you loose, george, on the great continent of america. publish your message in the open face of the sun, and do all the good you can'. 
W was in command of an army of nearly 700 local preachers. some of them were men of breeding and education, but many, indeed the majority, were not. W was alive to the peculiar temptations of the preacher's life, temptations which are especially dangerous to men whose gifts of rhetoric has promoted them
183  from obscurity to comparative prominence in their own circle.
W could not endure the easy vanity of the popular preacher. he did not try to soften his rebuke to one who had been corrupted by applause.
'I think you tasted of the powers of the world to come 13 or 14 years ago and was then simple of heart and willing to spend and be spent for Christ. but not long after, not being sufficiently on your guard, you suffered loss by being applauded. this revived and increased your natural vanity; which was the harder to be checked, because of your constitutional stubbornness;-two deadly enemies which have lain in wait for you many years and have given you many deep, if not mortal, wounds'.

his advice on the art of preaching was always to the point. 'I hope you have now got quit of your queer, arch expressions in preaching and that you speak as plain and dull as one of us'.
and again,
'scream no more, at the peril of your soul. God now warns you by me, whom He has set over you. speak as earnestly as you can, but do not scream. speak with all your heart but with a moderate voice. it was said of our lord, 'He shall not CRY': the word properly means, He shall not scream. herein be a follower of me, as I am of Christ. I often speak loud; often vehemently; but I never scream; i never strain myself; I dare not; I know it would be a sin against God and my own soul'.
W was alive to the dangers not only of formalism, but of informalism in religion. the letter killeth. perhaps, but the spirit doth not always make alive. formalism may lead to deadness, but informalism often leads to ranting. towards the end of his long life he wrote,
'I
184   find more profit in sermons on either good tempers or good works, than in what are vulgarly called Gospel sermons. that term has now become a mere cant word:  I wish none of our society would use it. it has no determinate meaning. let but a pert, self-sufficient animal, that has neither sense nor grace, bawl out something about Christ or His blood or justification by faith and his hearers cry out, 'what a fine gospel sermon!' surely the Methodists have not so leaned Christ!'

few religious leaders have been served with more wholehearted devotion by his disciples than was W.  even those whose faults he criticised with such merciless candour loved and revered him. they recognised that his reproofs were prompted by his disinterested passion for salvation. they knew that though his words might be rough, his heart was 'most wonderfully kind'. the phrases with which he gave expression in his anxiety for their souls were not the routine formulae of the case-hardened evangelist they rang true. he loved his friends; even the terseness of his literary style does not hide his affection. because he was an evangelist, he could not refrain from rebuking them for the good of their souls and because he loved them, he dreaded lest those rebukes might imperil the affectionate ties with which they were linked.'lift up your hearts to god or you will be angry with me' is a phrase which is repeated twice in a letter which W wrote at the age of 83. he could still spare the time and the energy to write a long letter full of tender rebuke and patient pleading. this letter must be quoted in full:
'Dear   , you know I love you. ever since I knew you i have neglected no way of showing it that was in my
185  power. and you know I esteem you for your zeal and activity, for your love of discipline and for your gifts which God has given you;  particularly quickness of apprehension and readiness of utterance; especially in prayer.
therefore i am jealous over you, lest you should lose any of the things you have gained and not receive a full reward. and the more so because I fear you are wanting in other respects. and who will venture to tell you so? you will scarce know how to bear it from me, unless you lift up your heart to God. if you do this, I may venture to tell you what I fear without any further preface. I fear you think of yourself more highly than you ought to think. do not you think too highly of your understanding?  of your gifts, particularly in preaching? as if you were the very best preacher in the Connexion? of your own importance? as if the work of god, here or there, depended wholly or mainly on you ? and of your popularity? which I have found to my surprise far less, even in L, than I expected.

may not this be much owing to the want of brotherly love? with what measure you mete, men will measure to you again. I fear there is something unloving in your spirit; something not only of roughness but of harshness, yea, of sourness!  are you not also extremely open to prejudice and not easy to be cured of it? so that whenever you are prejudiced you commence bitter, implacable, unmerciful? if so, that people are prejudiced against you is both the natural and judicial consequence.

I am afraid lest your want of love to your neighbours should spring from want of love to God; from want of thankfulness. i have sometimes heart you speak in a manner that made me tremble; indeed in terms that not only a weak christian but eve a serious Deist would scruple to use.
I fear you greatly want evenness of temper. are you
186 not generally too high or too low? are not all your passions too lively, your anger in particular?  is it not too soon raised?  and is it not too impetuous, causing you to be violent, boisterous, bearing down all before you?
now lift up your heart to God or you will be angry at me. but i must go a little farther. I fear you are greatly wanting in the government of your tongue. you are not exact in relating facts. I have observed it myself. you are apt to amplify; to enlarge a little beyond the truth. you cannot imagine, if others observe this, how it will affect your reputation.
but i fear you are more wanting in another respect: that you give a loose to your tongue when you are angry; that your language then is not only sharp, but coarse and ill bread. if this be so, the people will not bear it. they will not take it either from you or me'.
during the war, the germans coined an expressive nickname for a military type which exists in other armies than the german. 'bicyclists' was the name they gave to officers who pedalled down their subordinates while preserving a broad respectful back to their superiors.
W was no 'bicyclist'. he was as 'open' and outspoken to cabinet ministers as to lay preachers. here, for instance, are a few extracts from his letter to Lord Dartmouth, Colonial Secretary during the American crisis:
'I can truly say, I neither fear nor desire anything from your lordship. to speak a rough truth, I do not desire any intercourse with any persons of quality in england. I mean, for my own sake. they do me no good; and i fear, i can be none to them. if it be desired, i will readily leave all those to the care of my fellow labourers. I will article with them so to do, rather than this shall be any bone of contention.
were i not afraid of giving your lordship pain, I
187  would speak yet still further. methinks you desire I should; that is, to tell you, once for all, every thought that rises in my heart. i will then. at present I do not want you; but i really think you want me. for, have you a person in all england who speaks to your lordship so plain and downright as i do? who considers not the Peer, but the man?  not the Earl, but the immortal spirit? who rarely commends, but often blames and perhaps would do it oftener if you desired it? who is jealous over you with a godly jealousy, lest you should be less a christian by being a nobleman? lest, after having made a fair advance towards heaven, you should
'measure back your steps to earth again'.
o my Lord, is not such a person as this needful for you in the highest degree? if you have any such, I have no more to say, but that i pray God to bless him to your soul. if you have not, despise not even the assistance which it may please God to give you by,
My Lord,
Your Lordship's ready servant.
John W

W believed in unity of command, the unity, of course, being John W. it would be idle to deny that he was an autocrat. true he asked for and often took advice, just as a general will consult his staff officers, W, like a general, reserved the power of acting or not acting on advice which had been given to him.
W did not disdain advice, but he was too clear headed to pretend that he believed in democratic control. 'if by absolute power, he remarked with disarming
188  simplicity, 'you mean power which I exercise without any coadjutor, it is certainly true, but i see no objection to it'.

earlier in his life, of course, he shared control with charles, but Ch married and was no longer free to travel as he had been before. the control passed more and more to John. 'it appears to me, wrote Wh, that after the first difference with his brother who disputed his intended marriage, john made up his mind not to suffer either a superior or an equal n these respects.
from that time he seemed determined to be aut Caesar aut nullus.
the letters which John W wrote during 1753 confirm this view.
on october 20th, he writes to his brother as follows:
'I give you a dilemma. take one side or the other. either act really in connexion with me or never pretend to it. rather disclaim it and openly avow you do and will not.
by acting in connexion with me, I mean, take counsel with me once or twice a year, as to the places where you will labour. hear  my advice before you fix; whether you take it or not.
at present you are so far from this, that I do not even know when and where you intgend to go. so far are you from following any advice of mine; nay, even from asking it. and yet I may say, without vanity, that I am a better judge of this matter than either Lady Huntingdon, Sally Jones or any other: nay, than your own heart; that is, will.
I wish you all peace, zeal and love.
a letter written a few days later was endorsed by charles with the words, 'brother, oct. 31, 1753, trying to bring me under his yoke'.
on one occasion when charles W threatened to
189  leave the Conference if laymen were allowed to join in the discussions John turned to his neighbour and said, 'give my brother his hat.
the breach between the brothers was only temporary. the old, affectionate relations were soon restored, but after 1753 charles was more wrapped up in his family and less and less inclined to challenge John's undisputed control over the societies.
John W intended that Methodism after his death should be governed by the Annual Conference of preachers, but during his lifetime, the Conference was an advisory, but not a legislative body, consisting as it did of 'those preacher whom I invite to confer with me'.
some years before he died, he defined the scope of Conference in a letter to a dissatisfied preacher:
'you seem likewise to have quite a wrong idea of a Conference. for above 6 years after my return to england, there was no such thing. I then desired some of my preachers to meet me, in order to advise, not control me.  and you may observe, they had no power at all, but what I exercised through them. I chose to exercise the power which God had given me in this manner, bother to avoid ostentation and gently to habituate the people to obey them when i should be taken from their head. but as long as i remain with them, the fundamental rule of Methodism remains inviolate. as long as any preacher joins with me, he is to be directed by me in his work.'
few men disputed this claim and none disputed it twice. W's supremacy was absolute and extended  even to the most trivial details of daily life.  'Dear Tommy' is informed that Mr. W requires that he should go to bed at about 'a quarter after nine'.  the preachers in ireland were warned not to fall into the dirty habit of the country and given precise  instructions as to personal cleanliness. W, not only rose at 4 i
190  the morning, which was trying enough, but he expected his preachers to avoid 'intemperance in sleep'. 'knowing no reason why we should make God's Day the shortest of the seven, I desired Joseph Thomson to preach at 5'.
his word was law, not only with his preachers, but with his congregation. he decided that tea was unwholesome and his people were commanded to abstain from this dangerous beverage.  'many tell me to my face..that i can persuade the people to do anything.  having therefore, prevented his people from drinking tea, he determined to replace the lack of tea by prescriptions of his own compounding. 'i though, he says, of a kind of desperate experiment. i will prepare and give them physic myself'. W wrote a book on medicine. he distrusted doctors and was never happier than when prescribing for his friends.
he provided, not only for their souls and bodies, but also for their minds. he edited a Christian Library,  'a complete library for those that fear God' to borrow his description, and for this purpose, he edited and condensed and abridged an enormous number of books. W made great sums of money by his writings, all of which he gave away. it is difficult to decide whether his enormous circulation is a tribute to his literary gifts or to the power of imposing his will, even to the extent of making people buy his books. 'you remember the rule of Conference, he writes to a preacher, that every assistant should take my books into his own hands, as having better opportunities of dispersing them than any private person can possibly have. i desire you would do this without delay. the Primitive Physic should be in every family. so should the Christian Pattern if possible.
no wonder W was a best seller.
191  W was an autocrat, but he was a disinterested autocrat. no importance should be attached to his own statement that 'he feared and shunned, rather than desired authority of any kind...only when God lays that burden upon me, I bear it for His sake and the people's sake'.  this remark should be treated as the equivalent of a formal plea of 'not guilty'; for all autocrats profess to dread authority and to be inspired only by a high sense of public duty. this particular pleas is of no value unless supported by evidence. in W's case the evidence is no lacking.
W was free from that obstinate self confidence which is too often associated with autocracy. he was the most easily influenced of men.
W was always revising and modifying his views and doctrines, so much so that his Calvinistic adversaries accused him of being 'the veriest weathercock that ever was; he has not wit enough to be fixed in anything, but is tossed to and fro continually'.
in the week that preceded his Aldersgate Street conversion, W appears in the role of a very humble disciple.  and who is the great teacher at whose feet he sits?  Peter Bohler, a young moravian, many years his junior, distinguished neither for learning nor for great judgment.
no great religious leader has been less of a doctrinaire. no founder of a great religious movement has been more open to conviction.
'I have no more right..to object to a man for holding a different opinion from mine than i have to differ with a man because he wears a wig and I wear my own hair; but if he takes his wig off and shakes the powder in my eyes, i shall consider it my duty to get quit of him as soon as possible.
and even when angry people took off their wigs and shook the powder in W's eyes, he showed the most
192  remarkable forbearance. witness the following incident recorded in his journal.

thursday, 19, june, 1740
'in the evening mr. acourt complained that mr. nowers had hindered his going into our society. mr. nowers answered, 'it was by mr. C. Wesley's order'. 'what, said mr. acourt, do you refuse admitting a person into your society only because he differs from you in opinion? I answered, 'No; but what opinion do you mean? he said, 'that of election. i hold a certain number is elected from eternity. and these must and shall be saved. and the rest of mankind must and shall be damned. and many of your society hold the same'. I replied, 'i never asked whether they hold it or no. only let them not trouble others by disputing about it'. he said 'nay, but I  will dispute about it'. 'what, wherever you come?' 'yes, wherever I come'. 'why, then, would you come among us, who you know are of another mind?' 'because you are all wrong and i am resolved to set you right.' 'I fear your coming with this view would neither profit you nor us'. He concluded, 'then I will go and tell all the world that you and your brother are false prophets. and I tell you, in one fortnight you will all be in confusion'.
fr. 20. I mentioned this to our society and without entering into the controversy, besought all of them who were weak in the faith not to 'receive one another to doubtful disputations', but simply top follow after holiness and the things that make for peace'.
W's anxiety to retain complete control of the Societies was inspired by well-founded alarm lest intolerance and bigotry should ruin his great work, He
193  retained the role of a dictator to protect the spirit of liberty and charity within the societies.

who cast the first stone? who was the first pharisee to accuse W of restless ambition? john hampson. and who was  (he)? a Methodist preacher who never forgave W for excluding him from the legal Hundred. it was the Legal Hundred which constituted the methodist preachers' Conference. hampson himself was an ambitious man and as W refused to gratify his ambitions, he left the methodist connexion in a huff.
the ambitious man is usually anxious to secure the flattering and respectful verdict of his contemporaries and of posterity. there was only one verdict which interested W and that was the verdict of God. a man can, of coursewhom he was very fond, to canterbury. just then, charles W arrived with the news that mrs. John W was circulating scandalous rumours about her husband, supported , be very holy and yet not indifferent to the praise of his fellow men. it is not uncommon for religious people to be consumed with self pity when they reflect on the inadequate recognition which their work receives. few men have bothered less about recognition than John W. he resented unjust attacks on methodism, but he dismissed personal attacks on himself with quiet contempt. even his sternest critics admired and admitted his unruffled peace of mind, a characteristic which, as alexander knox remarks, is inconsistent with that restless ambition with which he was charged.
no man was less moved by the appeal, 'think what people will say', as charles W discovered when he tried to dissuade his brother from marrying one who had been a common servant. jackson, in his 'Life of charles W, ' relates an interesting anecdote which illustrates John W's indifference to his reputation.
he had promised to take charles's daughter sarah, of
194  whom he was very fond, to canterbury. just then, charles W arrived with the news that mrs. John W was circulating scandalous rumours about her husband, supported by the evidence of letters which she had deliberately mutilated.
'my dear father, wrote sarah in describing the incident, 'to whom the reputation of my uncle was far dearer than his own, saw the importance of immediate refutation and set off at once to see my uncle to induce him to post pone his journey.
'when he returned, he said-'my brother is indeed an extraordinary man. i placed before him the importance of the character of a ministry, the evil consequences which might result from his indifference to it; and urged him by every relative and public motive to answer for himself and stop the publication. his reply was-'Brother, when i devoted to God my ease, my time, my life, did i except my reputation? no tell Sally I will take her to canterbury tomorrow'....
John W sincerely believed that he could best serve the cause of God and the people by retaining autocratic control over Methodism. undoubtedly, he was right.
195  but though he was in sole control, he was always ready to delegate responsibility. he welcomed the institution of the class leader and the class meeting, because the class leaders relieved him of much of his pastoral work. he did not seek power or authority for its own sake. he was always alert to discover men who could be trusted with responsibility, for he was overworked and he often felt the strain of his appalling labours.
'what if 50 of the preachers disjoined themselves? he wrote to a rebellious methodist, what should I lose thereby? only a great deal of labour and care, which i do not seek; but endure because no one else either can or will'.
those who have studied his journals and his letters will not feel disposed to dispute the absolute sincerity and unadorned truth of this assertion.
'no founder of a monastic order, writes Southey, ever more entirely possessed the respect as well as the love and the admiration of his disciples.
autocrats may be admired and respected, but they are seldom loved unless their subordinates believe in their disinterested sincerity. W was beloved because those who serve him believed that he had their interests at heart and knew that his whole life was based on the two great commandments, 'thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all they heart and with all they strength..and thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
it is difficult in writing of W not to overdo trite analogies from war, for W was a great general, and many of his methods were military. his attitude towards his subordinates was certainly in the best traditions of the great generals. 'we think, as mr. eayrs
196  remarks, 'of Napoleon, whose formula, 'we were at Toulon together', covered a multitude of sins; for few who had been at Toulon with Napoleon appealed in vain for his help. we think of Lord Haig and of his unresting and untiring campaign for the men who had fought under him in france.
the men who enlisted under W faced hardship and hatred,the brutality of mods and the petty tyranny of squire and parson. these things W did not forget. nor was he mindful only of those who had been steadfast to the end, the tried and trusted brothers in arms. there were some who fell by the way and even for these he cherished compassionate memories. such was William Shent, a Leeds barber, who had been one of W's preachers, but who had been expelled from the Leeds Society for immorality.
i cannot conclude this chapter better than by quoting in full the letter, which in its indignation and in its chivalry is characteristic  of the writer, a letter which makes it easy to understand the love with which W was regarded.
'I have a few questions, which I desire may be proposed to the society at keighley.
who was the occasion of the Methodist preachers first setting foot in Leeds? WILLIAM SHENT
who received john nelson into his house at his first coming thither? WILLIAM SHENT
who was it that invited me, and received me when I came? WILLIAM SHENT
who was it that stood by me when I preached in the street, with stones flying on every side? w.shent
who was it that bore the storm of persecution for the whole town and stemmed it at the peril of his own life? WILLIAM SHENT
197  Whose word did God bless for many years in an eminent manner? WILLIAM SHENT
by whom were many children now in paradise begotten in the Lord and many now alive? w.shent
who is he that is ready now to be broken up and turned into the street? WILLIAM SHENT

and does nobody care for this? william shent fell into sin and was publicly expelled the society;
but must he be also starved?
must he with his grey hairs and all his children be without a place to lay his head?
can you suffer this?
Oh, tell it not in Gath!
where is gratitude?
where is compassion?
where is christianity?
where is humanity?
where is concern for the cause of God?
who is a wise man among you?
who is concerned for the Gospel?
who has put on bowels of mercy?
let him ARISE AND EXERT himself in this matter.
you here all arise as one man and roll away the reproach.
let us set him on his feet once more.
it may save both him and his family.
but what we do, let it be done quickly.
I am, dear brethren, your affectionate brother. John Wesley (note: all capitals mine...W wrote 'william shent' throughout)

Chapter 16 - The Opposition

198  three things, writes a medieval author, all have the same sort on most of us when they get the upper hand; a water-floor (?), a wasting fire and the common multitude of small folk'.
certainly the 'common multitude of small fold' showed little mercy to the founders of Methodism.
here is an extract from james jones's record of the Wednesbury Riots:
'the mod had been gathering all monday night and on tuesday morning they began their work. they assaulted, one after another, all the houses of those who were called Methodists. they first broke all their windows, suffering neither glass, lead, nor frames to remain therein. then they made their way in and all the tables, chairs, chests of drawers, with whatever was not easily removable, they dashed in pieces, particularly shop goods and furniture of every kind. what they could not well bread, as featherbeds, they cut in pieces and strewed about the room william sitch's wife was lying-in, but that was all one; they pulled away her bed too and cut it in pieces...all this time none offered to resit them indeed, most part, both men and women, fled for their lives; only the children stayed, not knowing whither to go.
wearing apparel and things that were of value or easily saleable, they carried away, every man loading himself with as much as he could well carry of whatever he liked best.
199  some of the gentlemen who had set the mob to work or threatened to turn away collier or miner out of their service that did not come and do his part, now drew up a paper for those of the Society to sign, importing that they would never invite or receive any Methodist preacher more. on this condition they told them they would stop the mob at once; otherwise they must take what followed.

this they offered to several, but they declared, one and all, 'we have already lost all our goods and nothing more can follow but the loss of our lives which we will lose too rather than wrong our consciences'.
for sheer malignity, the women seem to have surpassed the men. here is john nelson's description of his homecoming;
'when I got home I found my wife much better, though never likely to recover her former strength, owing to the persecution she met with at wakefield when mr. larwood was mobbed there. after they had abused him, she, with some women, set out for birstall. a mod followed them into the fields. when they overtook them she turned about and spake to them; upon which all the men returned without touching them; but the women followed them till they came to a gate, where they stopped them; they damned her, saying, 'you are nelson's wife, and here you shall die'.  they saw she was big with child, yet beat her on the body so cruelly that they killed the child in her womb and she went home and miscarried directly. this treatment she had reason to remember to her life's end;  but God more than made it up to her by filling her with peace and love'.
W's lay preachers were remarkable me. one seldom hears of a quitter among them. well might W ask,'I pray, for what pay could we procure men to do this service? to be always ready to go to prison or to death?'
200  left to themselves, the mob would perhaps never have troubled about the methodists. the riots were too often instigated by an unholy alliance between the parson and the squire. the parson resented the invasion of his parish by irregular preacher and the squire disliked the methodists, because it is the habit of english squires to distrust religious and political innovations. the squirearchy suspected that the doctrines of the methodist  tended to obliterate social distinctions. 'I asked a little gentleman at St. Just, writes W,  what objection there was to edward greefield. he said, 'why the man is well enough in other things; but his impudence the gentlemen cannot bear. why, sir, he says he knows his sins are forgiven!'
the impudence of the Methodists spread dismay in exalted quarters. the Duchess of Buckingham,having been invited by lady Huntingdon to hear Whitefield preach, replied as follows:
'i thank your ladyship for the information concerning the Methodist preachers. their doctrines are most repulsive and strongly tinctured with impertinence and disrespect towards their superiors, in perpetually endeavouring to level all ranks and do away with all distinctions. it is monstrous to be told that you have a heart as sinful as the common wretches that crawl on the earth. this is highly offensive and insulting; and i cannot but wonder that your ladyship should relish any sentiments so much at variance with high rank and good breeding'.
once it was generally realised that the Methodists might be mobbed with impunity, the new sport became as popular as bear baiting. indeed, much of the trouble with which W and his preachers had to contend was due to nothing more malicious that the brutal horseplay so common in a brutal period. sometimes the mob just wanted a fight. if a Methodist was handy all the better.
201  neither  the squire nor the parson would be likely to make a fuss if some stray methodist had his bones broken.
the hostility to the Methodists was increased by a foolish rumour which associated W with the Young Pretender, a rumour which gained wide credence at the time when the county was in a fervour of patriotism.
in 1743,English and French troops had fought against each other in the Battle of Dettingen. in the south of England a French invasion was expected from day to day. the Young Pretender was believed to be planning an invasion, supported by the French. it was realised that its success would result, not only in the overthrow of the dynasty, but also of the national religion.
the whole of england was suffering from an acute attack of spy fever and moreover of a particularly virulent type, for it was complicated by religious loyalties. in the 40s of the 18th century, it was enough to hint that a passing stranger was a popish emissary to raise the town against him.
there was much about the methodists which excited suspicion. they met at night and they met in private.very suspicious in war time; for it is obvious that a secret society in war time can have only one object, treachery. the methodist class meeting was said to be modelled on the Roman confessional.the lay preachers were restless men.they appeared suddenly in a place, remained for a few days-doubtless collecting information for the enemy-and then silently stole away.
again, it was asserted that these preachers were required to make regular reports to a smooth, secretive, little man in the background, a man like...like...yes, of course, like Loyola,the General of the Jesuits. the methodists reminded people of a brotherhood or an Order. a Roman Order. moreover, there was proof positive that in '44, when an invasion was hourly expected,
202  W had been seen with the Young Pretender in france. there was no doubt about this, So and So had it from a lady of quality, whose cousin was in the Admiralty.
all this will seem silly only to those who have forgotten the Russian rumour during the Great War.
the Roman
charles W had been even more inconvenienced.he had been haled before a magistrate and charged with favouring the pretender. the evidence against him was damning. it was said that at an open air service he had prayed that 'the Lord wold call home His banished'.  the witness to this damning fact failed to put in an appearance and the magistrate told W that he might go. but charles was not content to leave the question undecided.  'this is not sufficient...it is no tr5ifling matter. even my life is concerned in this charge.'. now would he leave until the magistrate assured him definitely that his loyalty was not in doubt.
both the Wesleys were staunch Tories, whose personal loyalty to the king was as strong as their patriotism.
the suggestion that W was a papist in disguise was revived a few years later by Bishop lavington whose scurrilous tract 'The Enthusiams of Methodists and Papists compared' was probably intended to exploit this particular calumny. Lavington hoped to discredit the methodists by pointing out the sinister resemblance of 'the wild and pernicious enthusiasm of some of the most eminent saints in the Popish communion' and the enthusiasm of the methodists in our own country'. he proceeds to draw a damning comparison between W
203  and St. Francis of Assisi, never realising that some readers might draw from this comparison a conclusion very different from the Bishop's.
here is a specimen of the Bishop's controversial style:
'Another bait to catch admirers and very common among enthusiasts, is a restless impatience and insatiable thirst of traveling and undertaking dangerous voyages for the conversion of infidels. accordingly our itinerant Methodists are fond of expressing their zeal on this account...but all this only shows the natural, unsettled humour, the rapid motion, of enthusiastic heads.  and we may assure them that the zealous impatience of popish fanatics are, by all accounts, greatly superior...'Tis almost incredible what miseries were endured by St. Francis, in his heroic voyage to convert the Sultan of Egypt, in that of St. Anthony to convert the moors and of St. ignatius to convert the Turks'.

it did not occur to bishop lavington that an equally damning comparison might be drawn between W and st. paul, for st. paul, like st. francis and like W, had 'an insatiable thirst for travelling and undertaking dangerous voyages for the conversion of infidels'. indeed, the whole passage might be read as an attack on Christianity rather than on methodism.
the magistrates, rather than the mob, were responsible for the persecution of the methodists. where the magistrates did their duty, the methodists had little to fear.  had all J.Ps. behaved like mr. George Stovin of Crowle, the methodists would have been left in peace. here is the story, as recorded in the journal:
wed. 9. I rode over to a neighbouring town to wait upon a justice of peace a man of candour and understanding;
204  before whom (i was informed) their angry neighbours had carried a whole wagon load of these new heretics. but when he asked what they had done there was a deep silence; for that was a point their conductors had forgot. at length one said, 'why they pretended to be better than other people and besides, they prayed from morning to night'. mr stovin asked, 'but have they done nothing besides? 'yes, sir, said an old man: 'an't please your worship, they have convarted my wife. till she went among them, she had such a tongue! and now she is as quit as a lamb'. 'carry them back, carry them back, replied the justice, and let them convert all the scolds in  the town.
the Foundery in the early days was often assailed by the mod, but in london these assaults were stopped, for sir john ganson, the chairman of the middlesex magistrates, informed W that he would receive full protection if he applied for it. 'Sir, i and the other middlesex magistrates..have orders from above to do you justice whenever you apply to us. 
'henry moore throws a pleasant light on these 'orders from above'. John W told him that one of the members of the original society of methodists at oxford had become a quaker and had settled at kew. being a man  of considerable property and of exemplary behaviour, he was much respected and had permission to walk in the royal gardens. there he frequently met George II who was accustomed to talk freely with him. on one occasion, knowing that he had been at oxford, George II,  asked him if he knew the Wesleys.  'they make a great noise in the nation, he said, the quaker replied, 'i know them well, King George and thou mayest be assured that thou hast not two better men in thy dominions, nor men that love thee better than john and charles W. he then gave the king an account of their principles and
205  conduct, with  which he seemed much pleased. when the question of the riots came before the Council the king declared that no man in his dominions should be persecuted on account of religion while he sat on the throne. this declaration was made known and by the vigorous action of the middlesex magistrates the persecution of the methodists by mobs in process of time ceased in london.

had the magistrates in other parts of the country modelled themselves on the middlesex magistrates, the riots would have soon come to an end. but this was far from being the case. 'do what you will to them, was the advice given by the magistrate at otley, so you break no bones'. 'but may a man, W drily comments, cut his neighbour's throat without breaking his bones?'
in cornwall, a methodist applied for justice to the worshipful and Reverend Dr. Borlasse against a rioter who had broken open his house and stolen his goods. 'thou conceited fellow, was the answer, art thou too turned religious?  they may burn thy house is they will; thou shalt have no justice'.
in many places, the clergy, so far from discouraging the mob, played a leading role in inciting it. a certain Reverend George White, for instance, issued a proclamation and mobilised his troops by means of a subtle appeal;
'notice is hereby given if any man be mindful to enlist into His majesty's Service, under the command of the Rev. mr. George White, Commander-in-Chief, john Bannister, Lieut.-General of his majesty's forces for the defence of the Church of England and the support of the manufactory in and about colne, both which are now in danger, etc, etc, let them now repair to the Drum-head at the Cross, when each man shall have a pint of ale in advance and other proper encouragements'.

206  it was clever of mr. white to suggest that trade and the church of england stood or fell together and the 'pint of ale in advance' was certainly a masterstroke.
W replied with great effect to bishop lavington and remained unruffled by episcopal thunders. it was a curate, not a bishop, who inflicted the deepest wound.
W had arrived at epworth in june 1742 and mr. romley, the curate, to whom samuel W  had shown the greatest kindness, refused to allow the son of his old benefactor 'to assist him by preaching or reading prayers'.
that same evening john W preached in the churchyard, standing on his father's tombstone.

'accordingly at six i came and found such a congregation as i believe epworth never saw before. i stood near the east end of the church, upon my father's tombstone, and cried, 'the kingdom of heaven is not meat and drink; but righteousness and peace and joy in the holy Ghost'.
a moving scene, one of the most dramatic in the history of the Church. for a whole week, W preached from the same spot. 'there were few places, writes Southey, where his teaching was attended with greater or more permanent results'. no wonder, for the popular mind was captured by the picture of john W delivering from his father's tombstone the message which he had been forbidden to deliver in his father's church.
'nothing, writes canon overton, has tended more to encourage the popular idea that W was 'turned out of the Church'. if he might not preach in the church of which his father had been rector and himself curate,
207  where might he preach? the argument is not logical; for exclusion from a building and exclusion from a society are different things. but simple people do not discriminate and the church owes a deep grudge to mr. romley, who half a year later completed the disastrous work which he had begun by repelling W from the holy Communion'.
'there could not have been, writes W ..so fit a place under heaven where this should befall me first as my father's house, the place of my nativity and the very place, where, 'according to the straitest sect of our religion', i had so long 'lived a pharisee'.  it was also fit in the highest degree, that he who repelled me from that very table where i had myself so often distributed the bread of life, should be one who owed all in this world to the tender love which my father had shown to his, as well as personally to himself'.
5 years later, W 'had once more the comfort of receiving the lord's supper at epworth, for mr. romley had left...
it is a sad story but in order to understand the attitude of the clergy, we must try to forget all that we know of w. for us he is one of the greatest figures of the 18th century; to his fellow priests he was merely an irregular preacher with no respect for ecclesiastical decencies . the methodists revived in a new form the old rivalry between the parish priests and the preaching friars. like the friars, the methodists cut right across the routine of parish life. the clergy would have found it easier to forgive them had they described themselves as Dissenters, but it was difficult to tolerate men who
208  claimed to be members of the national church, but who showed no deference to their ecclesiastical superiors and who apparently owed no allegiance excepting to a wandering presbyter from lincoln college, oxford.
moreover, in spite of W's advice, the itinerant preachers often criticised in no unmeasured terms the shortcomings of the clergy whose parishes they invaded.
there is a significant sentence-or rather a significant word-in a letter which john W wrote many years later to his brother. 'some obedience i always paid to the bishops'.
a modern bishop might, perhaps, be reasonably satisfied with 'some obedience,  but in W's day there were no advanced anglo-catholics to teach bishops their place and W presented a problem which was both new and most unwelcome.
we need hardly be surprised that the bishops preferred that people should take their chance of hell under their own parish priests, rather than go to heaven under an irregular preacher. some generals would prefer to lose a battle in accordance with, rather than to win a battle in defiance of king's Regulations. it is a common failing to transfer to an institution the loyalty which should be reserved for the object for which that institution was founded; to  forget that the church was created to save souls, no souls to save the church.
in justice to the bishops, we must not forget the alarm with which john W's elder brother, samuel, regarded his irregularities. 'i am not afraid, he wrote, the church should excommunicate him (discipline is at too low an ebb), but that he should excommunicate the church. it is pretty near it'.
'now if a good man, as canon overton justly remarks, who loved john W dearly and must have known his real goodness, could be so strongly opposed to
209  his irregular proceedings, is it not more than probable that many other good men, who knew and cared nothing about him personally, opposed him simply because they thought he was wrong and not because they were hostile to spiritual religion?
moreover much of this clerical opposition was perfunctory and melted away after personal contact with the Wesleys. here is a pleasant story of a certain mr. cordeux:
mr. cor had warned his congregation against 'hearing that vagabond W'.  shortly afterwards, W entered the church and mr. cor, observing a strange clergyman in the congregation, invited him to preach. after the service he asked his clerk who the stranger was.
sir..it is that vagabond W, against whom you warned us. 'aye, indeed, was the reply, we are trapped this time; but never mind, we have had a good sermon.
the dean heard of the matter and threatened to complain to the archbishop. accordingly, mr. cor took an early opportunity of telling the Archbishop himself that he had allowed mr. W to preach. 'and you did right, replied the primate. some years later, W accepted a second invitation from mr. cor to preach in his pulpit.
clerical opposition gradually died away. in 1785, charles W  in a letter to his brother pointed out that the bishops had left them alone to do just as they pleased for 50 years. 'at present, some of them are quite friendly towards us, particularly towards you. the churches are all open to us and never could there be less pretence for a separation.
it is not surprising that W should have been faced with opposition. trade unions, whether of bishops, generals or physicians, invariably close their ranks against
210  unauthorised practitioners. but it was strange that the opposition should have died away and that all pulpits should have been opened to W during the closing years of his life. for though the Church of his baptism was never dearer to john W than in the closing years of his life, his actions towards the end tended more and more toward schism.
we may deplore, but we can understand and perhaps even forgive much of the hostility with which john w was faced in the early years of his career, but we should allow the church of england due credit for its tolerance and affectionate attitude towards john W in the closing years of his life. a free lance, such as W, would have received and would still receive short shrift in the roman catholic church.

Chapter 17 - Perilous Days

211  john W would have made an ideal  infantry officer, well, perhaps not ideal, for even King's Regulations would not have prevented W completing his famous series of tracts by 'A word to a Field marshal' or 'A clam address to the War Office'.
but W had, at least, two qualities which are highly esteemed in the army. he was cool and courageous in moments of peril and he was scrupulously neat in his personal appearance. 'W is a lean elderly man, wrote horace walpole in 1766, freshly coloured, his hear smoothly combed, but into a soupcon of curls at the ends. wondrous clean'.   in describing attacks by the mob, he  often records with indignation the fact that some speck of mud had attached itself to his clothes or to his person. and he appears to have been far  more depressed by such outrages than by the perils through which he had passed.
a mob is far more alarming than an army. soldiers need not and frequently do not hate their enemies. it is their business to kill and be killed and they do what they have to do under orders. but the very spirit of evil seems incarnate in the senseless fury and unmotived hatred of a mob. it takes a stouter heart to face a hostile crowd than to remain calm under a heavy bombardment.
W never lost his self possession. he says in his
212  Journal that he made it a rule 'confirmed by long experience, always to look a mob in the face'. he saved his life more than once by acting on this rule.
W was, perhaps, never in greater danger than in falmouth in the summer of 1745. the whole country was in a state of the greatest excitement. the pretender was marching south from scotland and the ridiculous rumour that W was an emissary of the pretender had reached cornwall.
W was calling on an invalid and the house which he had entered was beset on all sides by the rabble, who 'roared with all their throats, 'Bring out the Canorum, Where is the Canorum? (an unmeaning word which the cornish generally use instead of methodist).
they forced open the outer door and filled the passage. only a thin partition separated them from the room in which W awaited their attack. at that moment he tells us he did not think his life was worth an hour's purchase. he was urged to hide, but he answered, 'N. it is best for me to stand just where i am.
away went the hinges and the door fell back into the room.
W stepped forward at once into the middle of the mob and said, 'here i am. which of you has anything to say to me? to which of you have i done any wrong? To you? or you? or you?
a mob sings well in chorus, but is not good at providing solos. the secret of handling a crowd is to disintegrate it into a series of individuals. the personal appeal, the personal retort, the personal question, have an embarrassing effect on individuals who will roar very lustily in chorus, but who prefer to sink their personality into that of the crowd.
'I continued speaking, says W, till i cam bare headed as i was (for I purposely left my hat, that
213  they might all see my face), into the middle of the street and ten, raising my voice, said, 'neighbours, countrymen! Do you desire to hear me speak?
they cried vehemently, 'Yes, yes. he shall speak. he shall. Nobody shall hinder him...I never saw before, adds w no, not at walsall itself, the hand of god so plainly shown as here...here, although the hands of perhaps some hundreds of people were lifted up to strike or throw, yet they were  one and all stopped in the midway; so that not a man touched me with one of his fingers; neither was anything thrown from first to last; so that I had not even a speck of dirt on my clothes'.
note the crowning mercy, 'not even a speck...
W never showed the least sign of being rattled. on one occasion, when he was just about to preach, an excited friend rushed into the room and warned him that the house was surrounded and that the mob proposed to burn it down. 'then our only way is to make use of it while it is still standing, W replied quietly, and proceeded to expound the 10th chapter of st. matthew.
he was a mater of mob psychology. he knew that a mob must be led and not driven. he knew how to attract its attention and how to coax it into respect. here is a typical scene:
an open street. a curious, hostile crowd watching W who is just about to preach. suddenly, he whops off his had and in clear, easy accents addresses them. 'friends, let every man do as he pleases, but it is my manner when I speak of the things of God or when another does, to uncover my head.
LET EVERY MAN DO AS HE PLEASES.  a master touch. no wonder that every head was bared.

an english crowd admires pluck and respects breeding
214 W had both. there was an air of distinction about the little man which had a devastating effect on the wildest of mob leaders. none could resist him once he came into personal contact with them. here are three characteristic entries from his journal;
'finding the uproar increase, i went into the midst and brought the head of the mob up with me to the desk i received but one blow on the side of the head; after which we reasoned the case. till he grew milder and milder and at length undertook to quit his companions.
the cry of  one and all was 'bring out the minister; we will have the minister'. i desired one to take their captain by the hand and bring him into the house. after a few sentences interchanged between us the lion was become a lamb. I desired him to go and bring one or two more the most angry of his companions. he brought in two, who were ready to swallow the ground with rage; but in 2 minutes they were as calm as he.
perceiving the violence of the rabble still increasing, I walked down into the thickest to them and took the captain of the mob by the hand. he immediately said, 'Sir, i will see you safe home, sir, no man shall touch you. Gentlemen, stand off; give back. I will knock the first man down that touches him'.
an amusing instance of W's personal magnetism occurred in cornwall. to understand what follows, the reader should know that the practice of pressing men to serve in the army had been made free use of by local magistrates in order to get rid of the Methodists. of course, in order to press a man for service, there had to be some pretence that the man was incapable of earning his own living and that he was likely to become a charge on the parish. to press for service the Fellow of a college and an Anglican priest was, of course, an outrage against the law.

215  a certain mr. b., however, carried away by his furious rage against the Methodists, attempted to break up a meeting at which W was preaching and actually had the audacity to seize W himself; but the story had better be told in W's own words:
'upon this mr. b lost all patience and cried out with all his might, 'seize him, seize him! I say, seize the preacher for his majesty's service. but no one stirring he rode up and struck several of his attendants, cursing them bitterly for not doing as they were bid. perceiving still that they would not move, he leaped off his horse, swore he would do it himself and caught hold of my cassock, crying, 'i take you to serve his majesty'.  a servant taking his horse, he took me by the arm and we walked arm in arm for about three quarters of a mile. he entertained me all the time with the 'wickedness of the fellows belonging to the socity'.  when he was taking breath I said,
Sir, be they what they will, I apprehend it will not justify you in seizing me in this manner and violently carrying me away, as you said, to serve his Majesty. he replied, 'I SEIZE YOU! AND VIOLENTLY CARRY YOU AWAY! no sir; no. nothing like it. I asked you to go with me to my house and you said you was willing; and if so, you are welcome' and if not, you are welcome to go where you please'. i answered, 'Sir, I know not if it would be safe for me to go back through this rabble'.
'Sir, said he, I will go with you myself'. he then called for his horse and another for me and rode back with me to the place form whence he took me.
the epic story of those early struggles is often relieved, as in the above passage, by humour, sometimes conscious, sometimes unconscious. once, an over zealous leader of a mob follow W into a house and discovered that he could not get out again and that he was a target for the stones which the mob were pouring in
216  through the windows. he was hit on the forehead and the blood spurted out like a stream. 'we shall be killed, he cried out, what shall i do, what shall i do? W advised him to pray to God and he adds drily in telling the story, 'he took my advice and began prying which he had never done since he was born'.
it was in staffordshire in the towns of darleston, wednesbury and walsall that the Methodists were called upon to endure their fiercest opposition. W himself nearly lost his life in wednesbury on the night of oct. 20, 1743.
for some time past, the influence of the local magistrates and clergy had been steadily exerted against the Methodists. a document, for instance, was signed by two justices of the peace, J. lane and W. persehouse.
'whereas we, His majesty's justices of the peace for the said county of stafford, have received information that several disorderly persons, styling themselves methodist preachers, go about raising routs and riots, to the great damage of His Majesty's liege people and against the peace of our Sovereign lord the King: these are, in His Majesty's name, to command you and every one of you, within your respective districts, to make diligent search after the said Methodist preachers and to bring him or them before some of us, his said Majesty's justices of the peace, to be examined concerning their unlawful doings.
W decided that he ought to go to wednesbury and investigate matters for himself. on reaching ..he preached at mid-day in the middle of the town without being molested, but in the afternoon, the mob surrounded the house in which he was staying.
W, following his usual custom, went out to the
217  mob and standing on a chair, asked them what they wanted. 'we want you to go with us to the Justice they replied.  'that I will said W, with all my heart. W then spoke a few words, 'which God applied', with the happy result that they cried out, 'the gentleman is an honest gentleman and we will spill our blood in his defence'.
none the less, they insisted that he should accompany them to the Justice. one or tow ran on ahead to convey the glad news to mr. lane that they were bringing mr. W 'before his Worship'. mr lane was not at all grateful. when he singed the proclamation we have quoted, he had expected to catch a minnow, not a trout. he had hoped, no doubt , to have the pleasure of bull-ragging some uneducated local preacher, but he was not prepared to cope with a Fellow of Lincoln. so he slunk off to bed and when the main body of the mob arrived, his son was sent out to parley with them.
mr. lane junior asked what was the matter. one replied, 'why, an't please you, they sing psalms all day; nay and make folks rise at 5 in the morning. and what would your Worship advise us to do?  'to go home said mr. lane and be quiet'.
but the mob were out to make a night of it and as mr. lane had failed them, they decided to bring W before mr. persehouse, the other signatory to the Proclamation. 'but mr. persehouse, likewise, sent word that he was in bed'.
the honest mob had done their best to carry out the wishes of eminent J. Ps. and had got no thanks for their pains. they decided to go home, but they had not gone far when they met a mob from Walsall and a free fight for the possession of the prisoner terminated in a victory for the invaders.
the second mob seized W and dragged him
218  through the streets of the town. when he asked leave to speak and to  state his case, they cried out, 'No, no! knock his brains out; down with him; kill him at once.
a 'lusty man' did his best to carry these instructions into effect. he struck at W several times with a large oaken stick, 'with which, if he had struck me once on the back of my head....it would have saved him all farther trouble. but every time the blow was turned aside, I know not how.
another turbulent rascal forced his way through the press, raised his arm to strike and 'on a sudden let it drop and only stroked my head, saying, 'what soft hair he has!'
once again, W's magnetic power over men had saved him. the captain of the mob, a prize fighter, said, 'Sir, i will spend my life for you: follow me and not one soul here shall touch a hair of your head'.
the prize fighter and a few of his friends rescued W and conveyed him back to his lodgings, 'having lost only a flap of my waist coat and a little skin from off my hand'.
the next day he met his brother charles. 'my brother came delivered out of the mouth of the lion. he looked like a soldier of Christ; his clothes were torn to tatters...but his work is not finished'.
the prize fighter who saved W joined the Methodist Societies. charles W asked him what he thought of his brother. 'think of him!..that he is a mon of God and God was on his side, when so many of us could not kill one mon'.

charles W was as courageous as his brother and survived perils no less great. witness the story of the devizes riots.
219 in feb. 1747, charles W road into the devizes
a mob headed by 'the chief gentleman of the town' and the zealous curate 'dancing for joy' surrounded the house in which charles was staying and besieged it till nightfall. charles W slept that night in a house which was owned by a friendly baptist. next morning he walked quietly to the house of a friend and began to preach. he knew that the mob was still searching for him, but none the less, he ordered all the doors to be thrown open to admit any worshippers who cared to attend. mark the courage of the man. he had no defence excepting his faith.
before long, the mob discovered him. they brought a fire engine with them and soon a stream of water was pouring into the house. chares retired into an upper room. the mob invaded the house, seized one man, threw him into a horse pond and broke his back. the constable them read the Riot Act and the mob dispersed after a siege of three hours. but the truce did not last long. once more, the house is which charles W was staying, was besieged.  the mob began to take the tiles off the roof. 'mr. W! called a little girl, 'creep under the bed. they will kill you. they are pulling down the house.  once again, a constable put in an appearance and tried to extract a promise from charles that he would leave the devizes and never return to preach again. charles replied that he refused to surrender the rights which he enjoyed as an englishman to visit any part of the kingdom that he desired. the constable pleaded
220  meekly that he would be quite content if mr. W would undertake not to return in the immediate future to devizes. 'i cannot come now, replied charles, because i must return to london a week hence, but observe i make no promise of not preaching here when the door is opened and don't you say that i do.

the constable left them to parley with the mob. he spoke smooth words and doubtless credited charles W with all mannert of pacific sentiments. he was wee meaning, but it was clear that he could not hold the mob in check for long. one of charles's friends suggested that they should take advantage of this momentary lull to excape by a back door.
charles was tempted. after all, why not take the simplest path to safety?  he would betray no trust by retreating.for two long days, he had been beset and besieged and his whole being cried out for peace.

yet he hesitated. he had an instinctive prejudice against back doors. there was no real reason why he should not creep quietly away...and yet...
he picked up his bible, opened it at random and chanced on this verse: 'Jesus said unto her 'if thou would'st believe, thou shalt see the glory of the Lord'.
he had got his answer. for him no easy issue out of his adversaries. did he believe that God has power over wind and wave, but also over the violence of human storms? if so he must be prepared to prove his faith by a gesture gallant, if irrational. his only extravagances were those of faith, but these were glorious ones. he threw open the door and went forth 'as easy as Luther to the council.

'if thou shouldest believe'. the rabble greeted him with a volley of oaths, but they fell back as he approached. between two rows of hostile faces charles and his gallant friends advanced at an easy, even pace. no man laid hands on them....

Chapter 18 - The Day's Round

222  W was on the road for more than forty years, curing which time he travelled a quarter of a million miles, preached more than 40,000 sermons, crossed the Irish Channel 50 times and wrote more than 200 books.
during these 40 years, W averaged 20 miles of travelling per day. sometimes he rode as much as 100 miles within the 24 hours.
such is the bare, bleak statistical record of the most active and crowded life ever lived by mortal man.
but statistics are unsatisfying. you must read the Journal before you can form a just impression of W's career. you must visualise the rough english roads along which W travelled. the cumulative effect of his own life story as told in his Journal cannot be conveyed by any statement of miles travelled and sermons preached.
i open the Journal at random. here is his diary entry for june 23.1787. W was then84 years of age and it is worth remarking that his hour of rising (4:30 AM) was an unusual lapse. for the previous 5 days, he had risen at his usual hour of 4 AM. here is the record:
saturday 23.
4.30 prayed, sermon; 8 tea, conversed, sermon; 2.30 dinner, conversed, sermon; 4.30 tea, conversed; 6 matt. 13.33; 7 at mr. smythe's, sermon; 8 supper, conversed, prayer, on business; 9.45.

223  money never stays with me, wrote W, it would burn if it did', but the man who was spendthrift of money was a miser of minutes. once upon a time, he wasted 5 whole minutes. it was long before he could forget those '5 minutes lost for ever'.
from 4 AM when he rose (and continued to rise until a few months before his death) until 10 PM , his usual hour for retiring, he husbanded each minute as it passed and invested it to the utmost advantage.
'history, philosophy, poetry, he tells us, I read on horseback having other employments at other times.
when he was 63d,  his friends gave him a carriage and pair. he nailed up one side of his coach and built in shelves which were filled with books and a board which could be let down to serve as a desk. 'who besides W ever turned the saddle at the open road and the changing english skies into a permanent study?'
few men travelled more than W, writes mr. curnock. 'he knew the highways and byways, the great houses and gardens, the churches and schools and, we may add, the new industries which were marking the advent of a new age. a man of affairs, the care of all the societies fell upon him, often involving laborious correspondence. his innumerable tours hummed with business. his chaise was a study, an office, a book shop,  a library, also a private chapel in which at stated hours, he fulfilled the devotional duties of the Holy Club. yet, notwithstanding these distractions, he read ancient and modern literature as he might have done in the seclusion of a college or country parsonage. the notices of books scattered throughout his Journal show how thoroughly he digested the books he read. their character and variety may be judged form the Catalogue compiled by mr. f.m.jackson and published in vol, r of the 'W.H.S. Proceedings'.

224  here is a day in W's life. out of bed at 4AM the first hour is spent in private devotion. then he preaches to a few hundred ardent Methodists who know that he is leaving them and who do not resent rising at 5AM in order to see and hear the last of their great leader.
the sermon over, W mounts his horse and off he rides. and as he rides, he reads; not light stuff to beguile a journey, but good, solid fare. he is shortsighted and belisarius's Life of sixtus V is a heavy book, so he throws the reins over the horse's  neck and holds the book up close to his eyes.

W's views on the technique of horsemanship had, at least, the saving merit of originality. the secret of good horsemanship, so he tells us , is to leave everything to the horse.  'in this journey, as well as in many others, I observed a mistake that almost universally prevails; and I desire all travellers to take good notice of it, which may save them from trouble and danger. near 30 years ago, I was thinking, 'Hoew is it that no horse ever stumbles while I am reading? no account can possibly be given but this: because then i throw the reins on his neck. i then set myself to observe and i aver that, in riding above 100,000 miles, I scarce ever remember any horse (except two, that would fall head over heels any way) to fall or make a considerable stumble, while I road with a slack rein. to fancy, therefore, that a tight rein prevents stumbling is a capital blunder. I have repeated the trial more frequently than most men in the kingdom can do.  a slack rein will prevent stumbling, if anything will, but in some horses nothing can.

225  truth to tell, W often found himself 'left behind in an instant' to quote his own graphic phrase, by horses who failed to respond to the negative guidance of a slack rein. but on the whole, he was lucky. by a process of natural selection, he eventually found himself astride the kind of horse which does not object to being treated as a study chair.

and so the horse jogs along and the tacit cooperation between an absent minded scholar and an unusually intelligent beast finally lands W early in the forenoon at the next village where he intends to preach.
then again, he takes the road. 20 dusty miles separate him from his resting place for the night. but the miles slip by easily, for he is deep in Priestley's Treatise on electricity. the shadows lengthen, the sun sinks. W can no longer read and for the first time he notices a slight touch of weariness. it is good to reach the little Inn where he proposes to pass the night. but before he sups, there is one urgent duty to perform. again and again he enjoins on his preachers to be merciful of their beasts. the Minutes of Conference dispose that every one 'shall see with his own eyes his horse rubbed, fed and bedded', and we may be sure that he practiced what he preached.
W once preached a sermon in which he promised animals their fair share of the general deliverance and prophesied that at the Last Day, they would enjoy a state of exalted happiness. we may be sure that W was thinking of those uncomplaining beasts who, with unstumbling tread, had carried him so many thousand miles along the muddy road of 18th century england. W would have sympathised with Pope's simple indian;
'who thinks accompanied to that equal sky
his faithful dog who shall bear him company'.

226  after supper, there is still much work to do. there are class leaders to meet, policy to be discussed and perhaps quarrelsome people to pacify. or there may be yet a third sermon to be preached.
and then at long last W is left alone. out comes his notebook and pencil. he jots down his Journal record for the day and then perhaps makes a few notes on the books he has been reading, comments pungent and critical or friendly and appreciative as the case may be. or perhaps he writes a chapter of one of the books which he is preparing for the press.
and so-finally-to bed.

such was the day's round, but we have still to account for his literary output. the sermons he preached, the societies he founded and maintained, the quarter million miles which he travelled, would have kept  any normal man fully occupied from dawn till sunset. but, incredible as it appears, W found time in addition, to write no fewer than 230 original works-some of them very original by the way.
the W Bibliography runs to 417 works, but the list is swollen by W's incurable habit of editing and revising and sometimes mutilating the works of other men.
233 original works. there are few men who could produce such a formidable array of volumes with the aid of secretaries and dictaphones, even if they had nothing else to do. but W wrote all his books with his own hand. few subjects escaped his pen. he wrote several histories (england, rome, etc.) a book on logic and a treatise on primitive physic just to put the doctors in their place. he compiled hebrew.
227  Greek and French grammars and an excellent english dictionary.
in addition to his original works, he edited a magazine, and abridged and revised many scores of book by other writers. his literary style is best described in his own words:
'what is it that constitutes a good style? perspicuity, purity, propriety (note - appropriate to purpose or circumstances), strength and easiness joined together...as for me, I never think of my style at all, but just set down the words that come first...clearness, in particular, is necessary for you and me, because we are to instruct people of the lowest understanding. we should constantly use the most common, little, easy words (so they are pure and proper) which our language affords. when I had been a member of the University about 10 years, i wrote and talked much as you do now. but when I talked to plain people in the castle or the town I observed they gaped and stared. this quickly obliged me to alter my style and adopt the language of those I spoke to. and yet there is a dignity in this simplicity, which is not  disagreeable to those of the highest rank'.
W consistently applied these principles, not only to his own writings, but to the revision of books by other men. in the extracts which he published from other writers, he ruthlessly excised every redundant word or phrase. 'one of his followers, remarks Dr. Legge,  has wondered that he never abridged john's gospel.
did W ever rest? at the end of his long life, he certainly took a short holiday in Holland, but his normal conception of a rest was to work at about twice the pressure of ordinary folk. 'I now rested a week at bristol..preaching only morning and evening'...
230  ...septuagenarians who are beginning to feel that they are past their prime, should take a daily dose of W's Journal. this should prove an excellent tonic, all the more so because W narrowly escaped death at the age of 50 from a galloping consumption.
his life was saved by an eccentric quaker physician who prescribed 'country air, asses' milk and riding daily'; thus anticipating, as mr. curnock points out, the most modern, approved treatment of consumption.
indeed, W 's case is often quoted in medical journals as evidence in support of the belief that riding is beneficial for consumptives.
W himself did not expect to recover and 'to prevent vile panegyrics (note: 'lofty oration; writing in praise of a person)he composed the following epitaph:
here lieth the body
of
John Wesley
a Brand plucked out of the Burning:
who died of a consumption in the 51st year of his age,
not leaving, after his debts are paid,
ten pounds behind him:
praying,
God be merciful to me, an Unprofitable Servant!

he ordered that this, if any, inscription should be placed on his tombstone.
231  18 years later he made the following entry in his Journal:
'I can hardly believe that i am this day entered into the 68th year of my age. how marvellous are the ways of God! how has He kept me even from a child! from 10 to 13 or 14, I had little but bread to eat and not great plenty of that. I believe this was so far from hurting me, that it laid the foundation of lasting health. when I grew up, in consequence of reading Dr. Cheyne, I chose to eat sparingly and drink water. this was another great means of continuing my health, till I was about seven and twenty. I then began spitting of blood, which continued several years. a warm climate cured this. I was afterwards brought to the brink of death by a fever; but it left me healthier than before. even years after I was in the third stage of a consumption; in three months it pleased God to remove this also. since that time I have known neither pain nor sickness, and am now healthier than I was 40 years ago. this hath God wrought!'

Chapter 19 - The Happy Traveller

232  it would be easy to illustrate the hardships of 18th century travel from W's Journal, for it would not be difficult to multiply extracts such as these:
'our servant came up and said, 'Sir, there is no travelling today. such a quantity of snow has fallen in the night that the roads are quite filled up'. I told him, 'At least we can walk 20 miles a day, with our horses in our hands'. so in the name of God we set out. the northeast wind was piercing as a sword and had driven the snow into such uneven heaps that the main road was unpassable'.

or again, 'we found the roads abundantly worse than they had been the day before, not only because the snows were deeper, which made the causeways in many places unpassable' (and turnpike roads were not known in these pars of england till some years after),  but likewise because the hard frost, succeeding the thaw, had made all the ground like glass. we were often obliged to walk, it being impossible to ride and our horses several times fell down while we were leading them, but not once while we were riding them, during the whole journey. it was past 8 before we got to Gateshead Fell, which appeared a great pathless waste of white. the snow filling up and covering all the roads, we were at a loss how to proceed, when an honest men of newcastle overtook and guided us safe into the town.
233  many a  rough journey I had before, but one like this i never had; between wind and hail and rain and ice and snow and driving sleet and piercing cold. but it is past: those days will return no more and are, therefore as though they had never been.
neither dangers nor difficulties ever prevented W from keeping an appointment to preach.
'I rode from nottingham to epworth and on monday set out for grimsby; but at ferry we were at a full stop, the boatmen telling us we could not pass the trent: it was as much as our lives were worth to put from shore before the storm abated. we waited an hour; but being afraid it would do much hurt if I should disappoint the congregation at grimsby, I asked the men if they did not think it possible to get to the other shore. they said they could not tell; but if we would venture our lives they would venture theirs. so we put off, having 6 men, 2 women and 3 horses int the boat. many stood looking after us on the river side, in the middle of which we were, when, in an instant, the side of the boat was under water, and the horses and men rolling one over another. we expected the boat to sink every moment; but i did not doubt of being able to swim ashore. the boatmen were amazed as well as the rest; but they quickly rowed for  life. and soon after, our horse leaping overboard lightened the boat and we all came unhurt to land.
they wondered what was the matter I did not rise (for I lay along in the bottom of the boat) and i wondered took, till, upon examination, I found that a large iron crow, which the boatmen sometimes used, was (none knew how) run through the string of my boot, which pinned me down that I could not stir; so that, if the boat had sunk, I should have been safe enough from swimming any farther'.
so long as W travelled by road, he could form an
234  approximate guess as to when he would arrive and could turn out his programme accordingly. but nothing was certain if he went to sea. W paid 50 visits to ireland.  today if the service to ireland is suspended for a few hours, a mild sensation is caused. but in the 18th century it was normal to hand about for days waiting for a favourable breeze. the traveller dared not leave the docks; for a ship which was waiting for a favourable wind would wait for nothing else...
235...W (had)...a genuine passion for wild and rugged scenery..
..from W's journal:  'we took horse at four and rode through one of the pleasantestcountries in the world . when we came to trecastle we had rode 50 miles in monmouthshire and brecknockshire and I will be bold to say all england does not afford such a line of 50 miles length, for fields, meadows, woods, brooks and gently rising mountains, fruitful to the very top. carmarthenshire, into which we came soon after, has at least as fruitful a soil;
236  but it is not so pleasant, because it has fewer mountains, though abundance of brooks and rivers'.
..another fine passage:
'taking horse early in the morning, we rode over the rough moutains of radnorshire and montgomeryshire into merionethshire. in the evening, i was surprised with one of the finest prospects, in its kind, that ever i saw in my life. we rode in a green vale, shaded with rows of trees, which made an arbour for several miles. the river laboured along on our left hand, through broken rocks of every size, shape and colour. on the other side of the river the mountain rose to an immense height, almost perpendicular and yet the tall, straight oaks stood, rank above rank, form the bottom to the very top; only here and there, where the mountain was not so steep, were interposed pastures or fields of corn. at a distance, as far as the eye could reach, as it were by way of contrast-
a muntain huge uprear'd
its broad, bare back-
with vast, rugged rocks hanging over its brow, that seemed to nod portending ruin'.

Chapter 20 -Wesley's Journal

239  John Wesley's life, remarked mrs oliphant, was no life at all in the ordinary sense of the word, but only a mere string of preachings. his Journals are like the notebooks of a physician-a curious monotonous, wonderful narrative'.
240  ....if the reader is prepared to plough through page after page of this kind of thing, he will have his reward. 'if you want to get into the last century, writes mr. augustine birrell in his excellent introduction to mr. eayrs's collection of the letters of John W,  'to feel its pulses throb beneath your finger, be content sometimes to leave the letters of horace walpole unturned, resist the drowsy temptation to waste your time over the learned triflers who sleep in the 17 volumes  of nichols-nay even deny yourself your annual reading of boswell or your biennial retreat with sterne and ride up and down the country with the greatest force of the 18th century in england'.
'no man lived nearer the centre, continues mr. birrell, than John W, neither clive nor pitt, neither
241  mansfield nor johnson...no other man did such a life's work for england'.
John W not only knew his subject, he could write. he had a concise and telling literary style, a dry, effective form of wit and a power of characterisation when he chose to use it. if W had been a little less interested in people's souls and a little more interested in their human characteristics, he would indeed have given us an unrivalled picture of 18th century england
'the great middle class of english people writes mr winchester, the class full of the jmost varied, racy, humorous life, W knew or might have known better than all the novelists of that century put together. he lived with them for 50 years, was their friend, adviser, father confessor. but you would never guess that he saw the humours of their life'.
mr. winchester attributes this lack to the fact that W had 'very little gift of humour'. ' he was cheerful-that came of his temperament-and he had a very pretty wit, usually with a satiric edge and shown best in some mood of criticism or controversy. you expect wit from every man of any eminence in the 18th century. but of that sympathetic enjoyment of all the manifold contrasts and incongruities of life which we call humour, i thing W had very little. that usually implies a habit of leisurely observation, which he would never indulge. it is a pity, when one thinks what an opportunity he had for the exercise of that fortunate gift.
true. W had more wit than humour, but in this, as in so many other things, W is inconsistent and eludes formal testification. just as you have neatly pigeon-holed him under 'Wit', you light on some passage in his Journal or letters which crosses the borderline between wit and humour. her are a few examples which the reader may be able to classify, but which the present
242  writer cannot. the wit is obvious, but is there not humour as well as wit in the following...
sat. 31- an odd circumstance occurred during the morning preaching. it was well only serious persons were present. an ass walked gravely in at the gate, came up to the door of the house, lifted up his head and stood stock still, in a posture of deep attention. might not 'the
243  dumb beastg reprove many who have far less decency and not much more understanding?'
'an impressive tribute to W's power over himself and his congregation. few preachers of today could continue to dominate a congregation which included as as 'in a posture of deep attention'. 

Chapter 22 - Wesley's Marriage

266  'I can forgive, but who can redress the wrong?  many, we may be sure, were anxious to try, and it is a little difficult to discover why mrs Vazeille, the widow of a london merchant, was eventually selected to fill the position which Grace (note- W's last love spoken of in the previous chapter.) ought  to have occupied. mrs. vazeille is never mentioned in W's Journal until he records the fact of his marriage and even then she is not mentioned by name. we know that she nursed W during an illness, but we also know that W found it difficult to avoid proposing to any lady who nursed him with sympathy and care.
W, having determined to marry, consulted nobody.  'The Twelve Rules of a Helper' were ignored. this time he was taking no risks and mrs. vazeille became Mrs Wesley before his brother charles had been apprised of his intentions.
a laconic entry in his Journal records the event:
sat. feb. 2. having received a full answer frommr. vincent perronet, I was clearly convinced that I ought to  marry. for many years I remained single, because I believed I could  be more useful in a single that in a married state. and I praise God, who enabled me so to do. I now as fully believed that in my present circumstances I might be more useful in a married state; into which, upon this clear conviction and by the advice of my friends, I entered a few days after'.
the very next entry is as follows:
267  'wed. 6. I met the single men and showed them on how many accounts it was good for those who had received that gift from God to remain 'single for the kingdom of heaven's sake': unless where a particular case might be an exception to the general rule'.
it would be interesting to discover what happened on the 3rd, 4th and 5th days for which there are no entries in the Journal. perhaps, these unrecorded happenings might help to explain why W's  particular case was not an exception to the general rule.
W's honeymoon correspondence, however, was more romantic than his Journal:
testworth,  42 miles from london
march 28, 1751
'My dear Molly,
do I write too soon? have not you above all the people in the world a right to hear from me as soon as possibly I can?  you have surely a Right to every proof of love I can give and to all the little help which is in my power. for you have given me even your own self. O how can we praise God enough, for making us Helps meet for each other? I am utterly astonished at His Goodness. let not only our lips but our lives shew forth His praise!
if any letter comes to you, directed to the Tev. Mr. John W, open it: it is for yourself, Dear Love, Adieu!
the honeymoon  did not long remain unclouded, nor was mrs W entirely to blame for what followed. she has, indeed, received rather less than justice from Methodist biographers, few of whom seem to realise the difficulties of her position. W was 48 years of age when he married and he had no intention of allowing marriage to interfere with the routine of his itinerant life.
268  'I cannot understand, he writes a few weeks after his marriage, how a Methodist preacher can answer it to God to preach one sermon or travel one day less in a married than in a single state. in this respect surely 'it remaineth that they who have wives be as though they had none'.
in other respects, W's views on marriage would have met with the cordial approval of eastern husbands. a wife's duties, he remarked many years later in a little tract, can be summed up quite briefly. 'she must recognise herself as the inferior of her husband and she must behave as such'.

he did not keep these views to himself. he communicated them with that 'openness' on which he lad so much stress, to his wife. 'be content, he wrote to her,  to be a private insignificant person, known and loved by God and me...leave me to be governed by God and my conscience. then shall i govern you with gentle sway and show that I do indeed love you even as Christ the church'.

but of course, mrs. W did not want to be loved 'as Christ the Church'. still less did she wish her husband to lavish his spiritual affections on other ladies.
W, as we have seen, was firmly determined not to reduce the number of sermons which he preached or the number of days which he travelled, in consequence of his marriage. the number of ladies with whom he corresponded remained equally unaffected.
W was one of the big public figures of the day, and as such, the natural target for a particular type of woman; the type which will go to almost any lengths in order to get on to terms of intimacy with prominent people. it was a tribute to W's modesty that he never questioned the sincerity of those who sought his spiritual advice.
269  there were few people to whom and few subjects on which, he was not prepared to give advice, as his lady friends discovered and played very skilfully on this weakness. 'it is certain, writes his great friend alexander knox, that mr. W had a predilection for the female character; partly because he had a mind ever alive to amiability  and partly from his generally finding in females a quicker and fuller responsiveness to his own ideas of interior piety and affectionate devotion. to his female correspondents, therefore (as it strikes me), he writes with peculiar effluence of though and frakness of communication...to interesting females especially this affection continually showed itself.

it did indeed and that was what started the trouble.
W was far from wise in his choice of those whom he honoured with his more intimate confidences. consider, for instance, the case of sarah ryan.
sarah ryan was a woman of no education; indeed, at one time she had been a domestic servant. she must have possessed unusual charm, for she married in rapid succession 3 husbands without the intervening formalities of a divorce or a funeral. her first husband was already married to another woman, still alive, so it will be perceived that SR had a genuine vocation for trigamy.

she heard W preach and was duly converted. the problem of her 3 husbands perplexed her much  as a similar problem perplexed the woman of samaria. finally, she decided to retain the name of the second husband and to live apart from all 3.  fortunately, they were all out of the country, the irishman whom she first married, the englishman, her second husband and the italian, the last of the trio.

W entertained for SR the same affectionate interest that a doctor will entertain for a patient
270  whom he has saved at death's door. it was a very interesting case, a museum piece, a shining example of the efficacy of justification by faith. 'if she abides in her integrity, she is a jewel indeed..he writes, one whose equal i have not yet found in england.
W appointed her bristol and kingswood housekeeper. as such, she sat at the head of the table surrounded by preachers. this was too much for mrs. W on one of her visits to kingswood.  'the -----
she exclaimed, now serving you has 3 husbands living.
W was much upset by this painful outburst, but his sympathy should have been more discreetly expressed:
jan. 20, 1758
my dear sister,
how did you feel yourself under your late trial? did you find no stirring of resentment; no remains of your will; no desire or wish that things should be otherwise?... i never saw you so much moved as you appeared to be that evening. your soul was then greatly troubled; and a variety of conflicting passions, love sorrow, desire, with a kind of despair, were easy to be read in your countenance...most of the trials you have lately met with have been of another kind;  but it is expedient for you to go through both evil and good report. the conversing with you, either by speaking or writing, is an unspeakable blessing to me. I cannot think of you without thinking of god. others often lead me to Him; but it is as it were, going round about; you bring me straight into His presence. therefore, whoever warns me against trusting you, i cannot refrain; as i am clearly convinced He calls me to it.
I am
Your affectionate brother.
John W
271  mrs W had already formed the habit of ransacking her husband's private correspondence. she found an affectionate letter to SR, perhaps the very letter which has just been quoted. the sequel surprised W. it will not surprise the reader.

jan. 27, 1758
my dear sister,

last friday, after many severe words, my -------left me, vowing she would see me no more. as i had wrote to you the same morning, I began to reason with myself, till I almost doubted whether I had done well in writing or whether i ought to write to you at all. after prayer that doubt was taken away. yet i was almost sorry that I had written that morning. in the evening, while I was preaching at the chapel,  she came into the chamber where i had left my clothes, searched my pockets and found the letter there, which I had finished, but had not sealed.  while she read it,  God broke her heart and i afterwards found her in such a temper as I have not seen her in for several years. she has continued in the same ever since. so I think God has given a sufficient answer, with regard to our writing to each other'.
Sarah was, of course, properly sympathetic. about a fortnight later W writes again:
feb. 10, 1758
My dear sister.
your last letter was seasonable indeed. I was growing faint in my mind. the being continually watched over for evil, the having every word I spoke, every action i did, small and great, watched over with no friendly eye;  the hearing a thousand little, tart, unkind reflections, in return for the kindest words i could devise, -
like drops of eating water on the marble,
at length have worn my sinking spirits down.
272  yet I could not say, 'take thy plague away from me? but only, 'let me be purified, not consumed.

it is not clear from the context whether 'thy plague' refers to mrs.  W. if so his prayer was answered.

one sympathises with mrs. W. it was bad enough to know that her husband was writing such affectionate letters to a repentant bigamist; but it was even more intolerable to be insulted by women who resented her sudden pre-eminence. Grace Murray, as we have seen,  shrank before the storm which her intended marriage with John W aroused among the fairer members of the societies, who had determined to make things unpleasant either for the favourite of the moment or for the wife of their leader.

in a long, pathetic letter mrs. W summarises  the petty insults to which she had to submit.  'honest John  Pawson makes it his business to slander me, wherever he goes...in this way, he and j. allen and your old quondam friend, mary madan, did all they could to render my life bitter while at bristol. may madan, the very day you set off from bristol, said, 'i hope mrs W is not to stay here till mr.W returns, for, if she does, this society will be quite ruined.
again, wedlock with john W meant the choice either between almost unbroken loneliness or between continuous traveling in all weathers and at all seasons. at first she chose to travel, she went with him to ireland and was 'extremely sick'.  she sampled the great variety of english weather from snow to storm and was exposed more than once to mob hostility. on one occasion, she and her husband were saved by taking refuge in a coach. the mob continue to hurl stones through the window. 'but a large gentlewoman, writes W, who sat in my lap screened me so that nothing came
273  near me'. one would like to know, as dr. leger remarks, whether mrs. W was screened by a large
gentleman sitting in her lap. 
no wonder that the poor woman grumbles at the hardships of an itinerant life. W was pained by her complaints and read into them a criticism not fo english roads and inns, but a slight to God Himself. i have already quoted  the opening sentences of a letter which concludes as follows:
'by the grace of God I never fret; I repine at nothing, I am discontented with nothing. and to hear persons at my ear fretting and murmuring at everything is like tearing the flesh off my bones. I see God sitting upon His throne and ruling all things well. although therefore I can bear this also, to hear His government of the world continually found fault with (for in blaming the things which He alone can alter, we in effect blame Him" yet it is such a burden to me as I cannot bear without pain; and i bless God when it is removed. the doctrine of a particular providence is what exceeding few persons understand, at least not practically,so as to apply it to any circumstance of life. this I want:  to see God acting in everything and disposing all for His own glory and His creatures' good'.
this was no idle boast. 'God's in His Heaven, all's well with the world' is a sentiment which most of us are more ready to endorse at the end of a long day's march than when buffeted by sleet or rain. W, on the other hand, was unaffected by discomfort. he was one of those
'that ever with a frolic welcome took
the thunder and the sunshine.
but it was a little unreasonable of him to expect his sea sick wife 'to see God acting in everything and disposing all for His own glory and His creaturs' good.
W's correspondence with ebenezer blackwell throws light on the growing estrangement between himself and his wife. B was a prosperous banker and remained one of W's closest friends for over 40 years...his country seat at lewisham was the resting place to which john and charles often retired.

'during 40 years, john W found there, writes mr. eayrs, what his aristocratic cultured nature appreciated keenly, ...most of his best literary work was done there.
in 1758, W went to ireland without his wife, leaving mrs. W free to pour out her troubles to mr. blackwell. 'really, Sir, writes W, when you have so eloquent a person at your elbow and i am 2 or 3 hundred miles off, I have little to say; it may be time enough when i return to london.
and again,'permit me to add one word to you. you think yourself a match for her; but you are not. by her exquisite art she has already made you to think ill of two very deserving women. and you have been more than once puzzled, what to think of me. nor could you help thinking me a LITTLE in the wrong'.
to this blackwell wrote a charming reply:
'I this day received your favour of the 2nd inst. i am sensible of my incapacity either  to speak or to write in that lively, concise manner which you do;  but as well as i can i will paragraph by paragraph give a direct answer to your letter...I do not think myself a match for mrs. W or any one that studies to deceive me; but i deny that by any exquisite art, she has made me think ill of two VERY DESERVING women. i suppose you mean mrs. Ryan and mrs. Crosby. the first i know nothing of, having never seen her in my life, and hardly
275  ever (for I won't say never) spoken of her to anybody, but yourself. the latter i only know from the letter wrote by yourself, which she owned to me was her handwriting and which i think will plainly prove to everyone of common sense, that she is not that VERY DESERVING  woman you think her and permit me to add, i am afraid she has too much art for my dear FRIEND.

W , who never resented honest disinterested criticism, replied at once:
'you have never yet spoken to me with more freedom than was agreeable to me.your freedom is the best proof of your friendship. there are not many that will deal freely with me. nor indeed are there many from whom i would desire it, lest it should hurt themselves without profiting me. but I do desire it or YOU and do not doubt but it will profit me, as it has done in time past.

after making all due allowance for mrs. W, the fact remains that she cannot be described as a sympathetic character. to W at least, she revealed a very unpleasant side. john hapson, who was certainly not biassed in W's favour, and who criticised him severely and unjustly, described a terrible scene in which mrs. W took part.  'jack, I was once on the point of committing murder. once, when I  was in the north of ireland, I went into a room and found mrs W foaming with fury. her husband was on the floor, where she had been trailing him by the hair  of his head and she herself was still holding in her hand venerable locks which she had plucked up by the roots. i felt as though i could have knocked the soul out of her.

in the course of january 1771, mrs W left her husband, taking with her a bundle of W's most private letters. ther is a laconic entry in the journal which records the fact that W had neither left nor
276  dismissed his rife and that he did not intend to recall her.
'wed. 23 - for what cause I know not to this day - set out for newcastle, purposing 'never to return'...
as a matter of fact, mrs. W did return, but not for long. we find her riding with W through yorkshire the following year, but the reconciliation was not permanent and again hshe left him. shortly afterward, she committed an unparonable act of treachery.
the calvinistic controversy was at its height. the calvinists were attacking W with the foulest of abuse and with the cruellest of insults.
mrs. W invited some of the leading cal to meet her and read to them letters which she had stolen from her husband, letters which she had deliberately mutilated and edited, in order to read into purely spiritual letters an expression of ardent physical passion. these letters, in their mutilated form, were published in Toplady's paper, 'The Gospel Magazine'.
a few months later mrs. W was apparently anxious to return once again to her husband:
'things standing thus, wrote W, if i was to receive you just now without any acknowledgment or reparation of these wrongs, it would be esteemed by all reasonable men a confirmation of what you have said.
it may be asked, 'what Feparation are you either able or willing to make?  I know not if you are willing to make any. if you are, what reparation are you able to make?  very little indeed, for the water is spilled and cannot be gathered up again. all you can do now, if you are ever so willing, is to Unsay What you have said. for instance, you have said over and over, that I have lived in adultery These Twenty Years. do you believe this or do you not? if you do, how can you think of
277  living with such a Monster?  if you do not, give it me under your hand. is not this the least that you can do?
presumably, mrs. W did not return. there is only one further reference to her in his Journal which runs as follows:
'1781, friday, oct. 12- I came to london and was informed that my wife died on monday. this evening she was buried, though I was not informed of it till a day or two after'.

Chapter 24 - The Mind of Wesley

W was the most consistent and the most inconsistent of men. the formula which helps us to resolve the paradoxical contradictions of his mental processes must be sought for in W's complete self surrender to God. W had only one interest in life, to discover and to do the Will of God. there was only one goal, but he followed different routes to that goal. he was consistent in his aim, but often inconsistent in his methods. W was credulous and sceptical, emotional and hard headed, a convinced believer in reason and logic to a point and still more convinced that personal experience and experimental religion were the ultimate tests of truth.
W's life was built on 2 and on only 2 fundamental beliefs, the existence of God and the verbal inspirations of the bible.
in the preface to his sermons, he writes as follows:
'I have thought, I am a creature of a day, passing through life as an arrow through the air. I am a spirit come from God and returning to God: just hovering over the great gulf; till, a few moments hence, I am no more seen; I drop into an unchangeable eternity! I want to know one thing -the way to heaven; how to land safe on that happy shore. God himself has condescended to teach the way: for this very end He came from heaven. He hath written it down in a book. O give me that book! at
292  any price, give me the book of God!  I have it:  here is knowledge enough for me. let me be homo unius libri'
W never allowed himself to question these fundamental beliefs, the existence of God and the verbal inspiration of Scripture. he never exposed these beliefs to his critical faculty.
W's comments on the historical and scientific works of the period were always shrewd and often sceptical. had he not restrained his own critical faculties, he might, perhaps, have become one of the leading free thinkers of the age, but he foresaw this possibility and shrank from the consequences of unfettered research. 'I am convinced, he wrote, from many experiments, I could not study to any degree of perfection, either mathematics, arithmetic or algebra, without being a Deist, if not an Atheist'.
he believed that God had confined our knowledge 'within vary narrow bounds; abundantly narrower than  common people imagine or men of learning are willing to acknowledge'.
at the age of 65 he preached a sermon in  which he said: 'after having sought for truth, with some diligence, for half a century, I am, at this day, hardly sure of anything but what I learn from the bible. nay, I positively affirm, I know nothing else so certainly, that i would dare to stake my salvation upon it.
W, like other great religious leaders, is open to  the charge that he kept his religious and his secular beliefs in separate compartments. it is, however, possible to defend the consistency of those who decline, as W declined, to submit the basis of belief on personal experience to the erosive action of reason. W, had he desired to rationalise his distrust of reason, might have defended his attitude as follows:
'I can no more doubt the existence of God than the existence
293  of the world around me. this belief, based on personal experience, belongs to a higher order of certitude than any certitude arrived at by purely intellectual processes.
human reason is impotent when faced with the problem of infinity and if i try to rationalise my belief in God, my faith will weaken and I shall lose my hold on the eternal verities. nothing could be more fundamentally irrational than to sacrifice truth on the altar of human reason. nothing could be more essentially rational than to maintain intact and uncorrupted, truths which have been revealed to me by God, even if my limited understanding is unable to justify those truths by the normal processes of logic'.
294...W, on the other hand, spent much of his life trying to equip men of little or no education for the evangelical campaign. to depreciate intellect is an easy way to win the applause of the uneducated. the text about the wise and prudent is popular with those too lazy or too stupid to learn. W had no patience with the smug self satisfaction of pious ignorance and he would have had little sympathy with certain anti-intellectual tendencies of our own day. to a lay preacher he writes: 'you are in danger of enthusiasm every hour...if you despise or lightly esteem reason, knowledge, or human learning; every one of which is an excellent gift of God and may serve the noblest purposes. I advise you, never to use the words, wisdom, reason or knowledge  by way of reproach. on the contrary pray that you yourself may abound in them more and more.
295  here again, we are confronted with one of W's many inconsistencies. the man who dared not study algebra 'to any degree of perfection' lest he should be led into atheism, made no attempt to limit the studies of his preachers. they were all urged to read and he devoted a great deal of his time to providing the Methodists with books on a wide choice of subjects. the man who said, 'it is so far from being true that there is no knowledge after we have quitted the body, that the doubt lies on the other side, whether there be any such thing as real knowledge till then, did his vest to increase the sum of human knowledge by adding 231 original works to current literature. he tied to educate and reform unenlightened pietism. 'Oh for light and heat united! he exclaimed with reference to a fanatic Methodist. he believed that the heat of emotion should be guided and controlled by the light of reason
(note -or of the Word...ps. 119.105?) 'here indeed, writes dr. leger, we reach the crowning and most paradoxical contrast in W's nature and destiny: this highly emotional man was preeminently rational, both in his personal conduct and religion. the revival, in which he took a leading part and which to many minds only conveys the idea of wild excitement and imaginative aberration, will ever be remembered under the sedate name of methodism:  that is to say, in the oxford days, strict adherence to University statutes and to all the observances of the church, doing things at regular hours, and punctually meeting on appointed days to transact carefully planned business;  in later years, an elaborate network of minute, punctilious regulations that cover and control, throughout vast tracts of land, the whole activity of the members of Societies, closely bring them and hold them together and even in the turbulent atmosphere of American independence and the French Revolution, keep them under the strictest moral, social and spiritual discipline, however lawless their former lives.

296  unruly their instincts, erratic the flights of their often diseased fancy.  the secret of it almost entirely lies in john W's personal influence, in the exactness of his mind together with the ascendancy of his will.
W has often been criticised for his credulity and with justice. we must, however, make due allowances for the mental climate of the age in which he lived. protestantism had substituted the infallible bible for the infallible church. biblical criticism was almost unknown and Geology had thrown no doubts on Genesis.  it is therefore absurd to condemn W as credulous, merely because he accepted the inerrancy of Scripture anbd deduced logical conclusions from that belief. W's statement that to give up witchcraft is 'in effect giving up the bible' is often quoted as an example of his credulity. it is, of course, nothing of the sort. it is an example of his logical mind. there are many references to witches and to witchcraft in the bible. if you believe in the bible, you must therefore believe in the possibility of witchcraft. this is a blunt staement of incontestable fact.

it is usual to explain W's alleged credulity by the impression made on his youthful mind by the ghost that disturbed the Epworth vicarage. we may , of course, believe that the Epworth Poltergeist and indeed all the phenomena recorded in the annals  of psychical research, can be explained without invoking the supernatural or you may hold that there remains a residue of facts which can be explained on no other hypothesis. where the evidence is so nicely balanced, there is no room for the accusation of credulity.
300  i have tried to show that W was by nature sceptical rather than credulous,  (def. 'willing to believe or trust too readily, especially without proper or adequate evidence, gullible), but it is impossible to deny that his critical faculty often deserted him in his dealings with human beings and that his power of ummasking fallacies and of discriminating between valid and worthless evidence, a power which made him a keen critic of books, vanished in his dealings with his fellow men...john was quite unperturbed by this admitted weakness and he claimed that charles, who believed nobody was more often deceived than he who believed everybody, but he produced no evidence in support of this contention. 'I have neither more nor less faith in human testimony, he remarks when he had turned 50, than i had 10 or 15 years ago, I could suspect every man that speaks to me, to be either a blunderer or a liar. but i will not. I dare not till I  have proof.

301  as dr. leger wittily remarks:  'the outcome of this charitable resolution was, that he took people at their face, or mouth, value.
in some moods, W professed a vast respect for logic. in other moods, with his characteristic inconsistency, he exposed the unreliability of logic when applied to fundamental religious problems.

a love of logic was one of the many good things that w carried away with him from oxford. despite 'what the little wits and pretty gentlemen affirm' logic is good, says W, for this at least, (wherever it is understood) to make people talk less;  by showing them both what is and what is not to the point and who extremely hard it is to prove anything.
he strikes a lyrical note in his praise of logic:
'I have since found abundant reason to praise God for giving me this honest art. by this, when men have hedged me in by what they called demonstrations, I have been many times able to dash them in pieces; in spit of all its covers, to touch the very point where the fallacy lay and it flew open in a moment. this is the art which i have sued with bishop warburton, as well as in the preceding pages. when dr. e twisted truth and falsehood together, in many of propositions, it was by this art i untwisted the one from the other and showed just how far each was true. at doing this, i bless God i am expert; as those will find who attack me without rhyme or reason...I have answered bishop warburton plainly and directly, and so untwisted his arguments that no man living will be able to piece them together.

true enough. W's training in logic was the basis of his admirable controversial technique. he made good
302  use of logic for destructive controversy, but his attempts to construct a logical foundation for one of his basic beliefs, the inerrancy of Scripture, are less successful...
303  William Law once warned W against confusing christinity and philosophy. 20 years later, W reminded law of his own words:
'at a time when i was in great danger of not valuing the authority of Scripture enough, you made that important observation.  'I see where your mistake lies. you would have a philosophical religion, but there can be no such thing. religion is the most plain, simple thing in the world. it is only 'we love Him, because He first love us.'. so far as you add philosophy to religion, just so far you spoil it.

from which it follows that metaphysical speculation can contribute nothing of value to religion . human reason is incapable of adding to the facts about God which 
304  He Himself has revealed to us in the Scriptures. W disliked fanciful speculation.  'I would not, he writes to his brother charles,  read over dr. watts's tract for 100 pounds. you may read it and welcome. I will not, dare not, move those subtle, metaphysical controversies.

and again, 'some years since I read about 50 pages of dr. watts's ingenious treatise upon the 'Glorified Humanity of Christ'. but it so confounded my intellects and plunged me into such unprofitable reasonings, yea, dangerous ones, that I would not have read it through for 500 pounds'.

...W hated Calvinism with a holy hatred, but he made no attempt to exclude Calvinists from his societies so long as they refrained from aggressive and ill mannered controversies. 'the distinguishing makes of a Methodist, he wrote, are not his opinions of any sort. whoever imagines a Methodist is a man of such and such an opinion is grossly ignorant of the whole affair; he mistakes the truth totally...who is a Methodist according to your won account?  I answer - a Methodist is

305  one who has, 'the love of God shed abroad in his heart by the Holy Ghost given' unto him, one who 'loves the Lord his God with all his heart, with all his soul and with all his mind, and with all his strength'. (note-who then could be a Methodist?)
in other words, Methodism was a personal and experimental religion. life and experiment must come first. the philosophy of a religion must be deduced from experience. W was always testing and reshaping his creed in congruity with the practical requirements of the evangelical mission field. he would have agreed....that 'it is our duty to act upon the rules given us until we have reason to think them wrong and to bring home to ourselves the truth of them by their fruits on themselves...

'orthodoxy or right opinion, writes W, is at best but a very slender part of religion, if it can be allowed to be any part at all. I will not quarrel with you about my opinion. only see that your heart be right toward God and that you know and love the Lord Jesus Christ; that you love your neighbour and walk as your Master walked; and i desire no more. I am sick of opinions; I am weary to hear them. my soul loathes this frothy food. give me solid and substantial religion; give
306  me an humble, gentle love of god and man, a man full of mercy and good fruits.

W's catholic tolerance was due partly to his innate scepticism. he was sure of God's love, but of very little else. no great religious leader has revised his own views so readily and so often. he was always submitting his views to the test of experience and reshaping them in the crucible of life.

to appreciate W's tolerance, you must remember the age in which he lived. the following passage from his Journal would not be in the least remarkable had it occurred in the journal of a modern Methodist:
'I read today part of the 'Meditations of Marcus Antonius'.  what a strange heathen! giving thanks to God for all the good thins he enjoyed!...I make no doubt but this is one of those 'many' who 'shall come from the east and the west and sit down with abraham, isaac and jacob, while 'the children of the kingdom, nominal christians, are 'shut out.
the doctrine of exclusive salvation was still flourishing when W wrote. it is dead today...
...confession of faith which Zwingli wrote shortly before his death, and in which he described that future 'assembly of all the saintly, the heroic, the faithful and the virtuous', when abel and enoch, noah and abraham, isaac and jacob will mingle with 'socrates, aristides and antigonus, with numa and camillus, hercules and theseus, the scipios and the catos' and when every upright and holy man who has ever lived will be 'present with God'...
307  ...but W tolerance, of course, was not confined to conceding that virtuous heathens may conceivabley be saved. human nature being what it is, it is easier to be broad minded about virtuous heathens than about virtuous christians who worship  the same God in a different chapel. W, in one of the finest sermons ever preached, enforced on his followers the vital duty of 'charity, tolerance and the Catholic spirit.
'I dare not, said W in the course of this sermon, presume to impose my mode of worship on any other. I believe it is truly primitive and apostolical: but my belief is no rule for another. I ask not, therefore, of him with whom i would unite in love, are you of my church?  of my congregation?  do you receive the same form of Church Government and allow the same church officers with me? do you join in the same form of prayer wherein i worship God? ...let all these things stand by; we will talk of them if need be , at a more convenient season;  my only question at present is this, -'is thine heart right, as my heart is with thy heart?
W then proceeds to explain that the man whose heart is right will always believe in God and in the Lord Jesus Christ, that his faith will be filled with the energy of love, that he will love his neighbour as himself and that his love of god and of his neighbour will be shown forth by works.

he is careful to warn his congregation that by the
308  catholic spirit he does not mean speculative latitudinarianism.  'it is not an indifference to all opinions: this is the spawn of hell, not the offspring of heaven. this unsettledness of thought, this being 'driven to and fro and tossed about with evry wind of doctrine is a great curse, not a blessing; an irreconcilable enemy, not a friend, to true catholicism...
W repeats his formula, 'if thy heart is right as my hearrt is with thy hearrt? and concludes:
'I do not mean, 'embrace my modes of worship; or 'I will embrace yours. this also is a thing which does not depend either on your choice or mine. we must both act as each is fully persuaded in his own mind. hold you fast that which you believe is most acceptable to God and i will do the same. I believe the episcopal form of Church government to be scriptural and apostolical. if you think the presbyterian or independent is better, think so still, and act accordingly. I believe infants ought to be baptized; and that this may be done either by dipping or sprinkling. if you are otherwise persuaded, be so still and follow your own persuasion. it appears to me, that forms of prayer are of excellent use, particularly in the great congregation. if you judge extemporary prayer to be of more use, act suitably to your own judgment...
309  I  have no desire to dispute with you one moment upon any of the preceding heads. let all these smaller points stand aside. let them never come into sight. 'if thine heart is as my heart', if thou lovest God and all mankind, I ask no more; Give me thine hand'.

one more quotation from a private letter which proves that john W was prepared to practise the tolerance which he had preached.
charles W's favourite and most gifted son had just joined the roman catholic church, and charles was grievously distressed. 'I doubt not, writes john W to his brother, that sara and you are in trouble because samuel has 'changed his religion'.  nay, he has changed his opinion and mode of worship, but not his religion; it is quite another thing...what, then is religion?  it is  happiness in God or in the knowledge and love of God. it is faith working by love, producing righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost. in other words, it is a heart and life devoted to God...either he has this religion or he has not; if he has, he will not finally perish.

Chapter 25 - Lex orandi: lex credendi

310  W believed in the Love of God, but he also believed in the hate of God. his heart assured him of God's universal love, freely offered to all mankind. his mind deduced from certain scriptural texts the grim doctrine of God's eternal hatred of those who fail to avail themselves of that offer.

at that time there was no challenge to the doctrine of eternal and intolerable punishment. the absence of revolt against this belief is one of the strangest facts in the history of christianity, a fact which  is only partially explained by the reluctance which christians felt to doubt any belief apparently based on the explicit words of Christ Himself.
a few quotations from a sermon which john W preached, may help the reader to realise what the world had gained by the virtual disappearance of one of the most revolting doctrines that ever darkened the mind of man. (note-?)

W chose for his text:  'where their worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched (mark 9.48) and he begins as follows:
''every truth which is revealed in the oracles of God is undoubtedly of great importance. yet it may be allowed that some of those which are revealed therein are of greater importance than others, as being more immediately conducive to the grand end of all, the eternal salvation of men. and we may judge of their importance,
311  even from this circumstance, -that they are not mentioned once only in the sacred writings, but are repeated over and over. a remarkable instance of this we have with regard to the awful truth which is now before us. our blessed Lord, who uses no superfluous words, who makes no 'vain repetitions',  repeats it over and over in the same chapter and, as it were, in the same breath. so (vss 43,44,  'if thy hand offend thee', if a thing or person as useful as a hand, be an occasion of sin and there is no other way to shun that sin, - 'cut it off': it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having 2 hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: where their worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched. so again (vss 45,46), 'if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: where their worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched'.
these opening sentences seem to me highly significant. to the Calvinists, W  had replied:  'what will by prove by scripture? that god is worse than the Devil? it cannot be. whatever the Scripture proves, it never can prove this...No Scripture can mean that God is not love or that His mercy is not over all His works.
and yet, in the sermon that follows, W steels himself to prove that God's mercy is NOT over all His works. (?) what is the key to this inconsistency? W apparently discriminated between doctrines that Scripture appeared to prove but which he rejected because they conflicted with the central fact of his experience - the love of God and doctrines which he dared not reject because they were based on the ipissima verba of Christ.  W was not a Higher critic.  he did not question the accuracy of st. mark's report of Christ's words. still
312  less was he prepared to take their escatalogical imagery in any but the most literal sense.
W continues;  'and let it not be thought, that the consideration of these terrible truths is prop[er only foe enormous sinners. how is this supposition consistent with what our Lord speaks to those who were then, doubtless, the holiest men upon earth?
in other words, W did not believe in a hell tenanted only by judas iscariot and nero. even the apostles were in danger of hell, from which it was a fair deduction, that the number of the damned greatly exceeded the number of the saved.
W then proceeds to describe in detail the sufferings of the damned. few more impressive sermons can have been preached on this threadbare theme. in the Middle Ages 'the crescendo of pious exaggeration', writes dr. coulton, shows that Hell terrors had a tendency to wear dull among the multitude. the general mind tended to grow callous from excessive friction upon one spot'.  familiarity robbed the most lurid imagery of its power to frighten the imagination. repetition blunted the effectiveness of well worn phrases. W's unique sermon on Hell is impressive precisely because it is unique. he hated the theme too much to return to it. he never made use of Hell Fire to precipitate a conversion and even in this sermon he does not pile on the horrors.  'let us keep to the written word, he says.  'it is torment enough to dwell with everlasting burnings'.
and as the careful argument unfolds, we feel that every word is weighed, every phrase considered and every deduction wrung from W by relentless logic. the absence of rhetoric heightens the effect. here is nothing but a reasoned summary of facts, beyonee all possibility of dispute. from the major premiss, the words of
313  Christ which W takes for his text, the argument movees irresistibly forward to its pitiless conclusion.
the punishment of the damned, says W, will be 'either poena damni - 'what they lose' ;  or poena sensus - what they feel.
first as to the poena damni 'the punishment of loss'.
'the soul loses all those pleasures, the enjoyment of which depends on the outward senses. the smell, the tast, the touch, delight no more...all the pleasures of the imagination are at an end...and nothing new, but one unvaried scene of horror upon horror...at the same instant will commence another loss, - that of all the persons whom they loved...for there is no friendship in hell'.  and finally, the damned have lost their place 'in abraham's bosom, in the paradise of God'.
and yet the naegative punishment of loss is mild and merciful indeed mompared to the positive punishment of pain.
secondly as to the fire of hell. away with all reassuring dilusions.
'it has been questioned by some, whether there be any fire in hell;  that is, any material fire. nay, if there be any fire, it is unquestionably material...does not our Lord speak as if it were a real fire? is it possible than to suppose that the God of truth would speak in this manner, if it were not so?  does he design to fright his poor creatures? what, with scarecrows?  with vain shadows of things that have no being? O let not any one think so! impute not such folly to the Most High!
'but others aver, 'it is not possible that fire should burn always. forr by the immutable law of nature, it consumes whatever is thrown into it. and, by the same law, as soon as it has consumed its fuel, it is itself consumed:  it goes out...but here is the mistake:  the present laws of nature are not immutable...therefore, if it
314  were true that fire consumes all things now, it would not follow that it would do the same after the whole frame of nature has undergone that vast, universal change.
'I say, if it were true that 'fire consumes all things now'. but indeed, it is not true. has it not pleased God to give us already some proof of what will be hereafter? is not the Linum Asbestinum, the incombustible flax, known in most parts of Europe? if you take a towel or handkerchief made of this (one of which may now be seen in the British Museum), you may throw it into the hottest fire and when it is taken out again, it will be observed, upon the nicest experiment, not to have lost one grain of its weight. here, therefore, is a substance before our eyes, which, even in the present constitution of things, (as if it were an emblem of things to come) may remain in fire without being consumed'.

Paley in his argument from design clearly overlooked the true significance of asbestos.
then follows a terrible illustration, an illustration which proves that W did not run away from the grimmest consequences of his beliefs. the sermon is nothing if not logical. 
'so even the tortures of the Romish Inquisition are restrained by those that employ them, when they suppose the sufferer cannot endure any more. they then order the executioners to forbear;  because it is contrary to the rules of the house that a man should die upon the rack. and very frequently, when there is no human help, they are restrained by God, who hath set them their bounds which they cannot pass and saith, 'hitherto shall ye come and no farther'.  yea, so mercifully hath God ordained, that the very extremity of pain causes a suspension of it. the sufferer faints away; and so, for a time at least, sinks into insensibility. but the inhabitants of hell are perfectly wicked, having no spark of goodness remaining.
315  and they are restrained by none from exerting to the uttermost their total wickedness. not by men; none will be restrained from evil by his companions in damnation:  and not by GOD; for He hath forgotten them, hath delivered them over to the tormentors. and the devils need not fear, like their instruments upon earth, lest they should expire under the torture. they can die no more: they are strong to sustain whatever the united malice, skill, and strength of angels can inflict upon them. and their angelic tormentors have time sufficient to vary their tormenttors have time sufficient to vary their torments a 1000 ways. how infinitely may they vary one single torment, - horrible appearances! whereby, there is no doubt, an evil spirit, if permitted, could terrify the stoutest man upon earth to death'.
and so he goes on, draining the last drop of horror from his theme.
'this is the sting of all!  as for our pains on earth, blessed by God, they are not eternal. there are some intervals to relieve and there is some period to finish them. when we ask a friend that is sick, how he does; 'I am in pain now, he ways, but I hope to be easy soon. this is a sweet mitigation of the present uneasiness. but how dreadful would his case e if he should answer, 'I am all over pain and I shall never be eased of it. I lie under exquisite torment of body and horror of soul and I shall feel it FOR EVER! such is the case of the damned sinners in hell. 'suffer any pain, then, rather than come into that place of torment!'

i W's day, torture was still legal in europe, the Inguisition had not been abolished and women were still burnt alive in england for petty treason. it was
316  therefor easier for W than it would e for us to believe in a Creator who deliberately employed torture....
the most interesting evidence of the complete change in theological climate is the evidence unconsciously provided by moderhn writers on W.
the one sermon of W's whichis never quoted is the one sermon which exposes his deepest convictions on a subject which, to W, semed of supreme importance.
not only have we ceased to believe in W's hell (note - to be fair and give credit where credit is due, not W's but God's hell), but we find it almost impossible to realise that this belief was ever real to W.

317  ...mr. rattenbury is a good judge of literature-witness his masterly chapter on the hymns as literature-and he is certainly competent to discriminate between literary ornament and genuine thought. but I am sure that if he re-reads this sermon, he will be tempted to revise his hasty verdict. he must have forgotten that it was in this very sermon that W condemned severely dante's attempt to embroider by 'literary ornament'  the horrors of hell. the subject, he says, is too awful 'to wander from the written word'.  the whole weight of evidence is against Mr. r's view that this sermon is 'an artificial production'. every line represents real thought on a subject of vital importance. mr. R, I feel, would have been more impressed by the tragic sincerity of this sermon, had he not been biassed by a subconscious conviction that no man as good and as great as W could ever have entertained so absurd and revolting a belief.
it is true, of course, that W only preached one sermon on hell and that he virtually made no use of hellfire in his appeals to the unconverted.  but it is a mistake to base any arguments on W's reticences. he never allowed his mind to dwell for long on distressing subjects which he was unable to remedy. he focused his attention on reparable tragedies. his practical sense forbade him to wast effort or even emotion on matters which he could not control or alter. hell was a fact beyond his control and he faced the grim implications of that belief, and passed on to consider how best to reduce the number of the damned and to increase the number of the saved. 
his reticence on the subject of hell proves no more than the reticence on the subject of his wife or of his brother's death.  weeks passed after his brother died before he alluded
318  to him in his Fournal and even then the references are brief and few,  as are also (for a very different reason)  the Journal references to his wife.
there is one significan sentence in the sermon, a sentence which has already been quoted. after alluding briefly to the variety of fanciful tortures jdescribed in dante's 'Inferno,' W adds: 'but I find no word, no tittle of this, not the least hint of it in all the Bible. and surely this is too awful a subject to admit of such play of imagination. let us keep to the written word. it is torment enough to wdwell with everlasting burnings'.
'it is torment enough'...no wonder that W turned with relief to the thought of God's love and though his imagination was too sensitive to permit him 'to dwell with everlasting burnings' and though hell was seldom alluded to in his sermons, the urge to save himself and others from 'the worm dieth not' and 'th fire that is no quenched' remained the supreme motive of his life.
and, of course, if men were governed by reason, those who believed in a hell such as the hell which W described, would have consecrated, as did W, every waking though to the problem of saving themselves and their fellow men from eternal agony. against a background of never-ending torture, even the most seductive of temptations would soon lose their savour. the life that W lived was, indeed, the logical result of the beliefs that W held. but few men are as logical as W, and so the sinners who profess to believe in hell continued cheerfully to sin just as if Hell was nothing more than the product of a diseased imagination.
it is, of course, a commonplace that mankind is not much impressed even by the most appalling of prospects unless they are imminent. after the Messina earthquake, the inhabitants set to work to rebuild the town on the same
319  place and so perhaps it is not very surprising that the belief in hell, even when it was most general, never succeeded in eclipsing the gaiety of nations.
W was different. he had no use for half-beliefs. IF HE ACCEPTED A DOCTRINE,, HE BEHAVED AS IF THAT DOCTRINE WAS TRUE. undoubtedly he believed in hell and undoubtedly this belief had a profound influence on his life.
the very word 'Hell' has lost most of its old meaning and it is necessary to emphasise the fact that throughout this chapter the word 'Hell' is used in its original and proper sense as the place of ETERNAL torment...the belief in hell is revolting, not because it implies punishment beyond the grave, but because it postulates a creator who punishes with no hope of improving (since eternal punishment can have no remedial effect)  and who is not sufficiently civilized to reject torture as a mode of punishment.
it is necessary to distinguish carefully between the belief in eternal punishment and the belief in punishment beyond the grave, that is, between Hell and Purgatory.  Christ undoubtedly taught that those who persisted in sin should suffer in the next world, but there is nothing in His teaching which compels us to believe in the eternity of such suffering.  the cardinal blunder of Protestantism was to reject purgatory and to retain hell. the Protestants should have rejected hell and retained purgatory.
(note -wish it was that 'easy')
for if hell is a fiction but purgatory a fact, it is still worth while to avoid the punishment of sin, a punishment which is often extremely unpleasant in this world and which, for all we know to the contrary, may be even more unpleasant in the next.
it is all a question of proportion, to what extent should we treat this life merely as proationary and this world merely as a platform from which trains start labelled 'Heaven' or 'Hell' respectively. that these aspects are
320  important, no christian would deny. are there, however, no legitimate interests in life excepting those which concern our eternal welfare? (note - yes, showing our love for God giving His life for us by doing what pleases Him even to the voluntary laying down of our life for His precious Name...living full of good works in such a way that those who see them glorify, praise and are drawn to give their heart and lives to Him as well.)
to this question, W would have replied with an unhesitating negative. he was not a puritan by temperament. he had a natural love for beauty. he loved children and young people and good talk and friendly folk and all the innocent trivialities of life. but his belief in that particularly horrible hell, described in his sermon coloured his outlook on beauty and on innocent pleasure. among the Moravians, W had heard a sour german proverb - 'he that plays when he is a child will play when he is a man'.  and neither holidays nor play were included in the programme in his Kingswood school. the unfortunate children at ths school rose at 4AM both in winter and  in summer. 
W believed, that from childhood upward every energy should be focused and every moment concentrated to the one thing which mattered in life, salvation from the wrath to come.
a gloomy, depressing creed. a creed which divorces grace from nature and joy from
God. it is a tribute to  the sanity of john W that in spite of his creed, he remained tolerant and large minded. it would be a mistake to exaggerate, but it would be foolish to deny the influence of his life and character of the foulest doctrine ever grafted on the parent stem of the Catholic faith.
i agree with mr. fattenbury that 'the dominant message of the Ws was love, not hell', but it is unsound to reject W's belief in hell as a mere side issue in its effect on his life.

life is full of problems, but to w all of them admitted a simple solution. there were few situations in
321  life which were not covered either by Christ's explicit commandments or a logical deduction from those commandments. useless to talk of w of the the 'responsibilities of wealth'. or to try to enlist his sympathetic consideration of the problems of the christian's attitude towards money. 'where is the difficulty? he would have rreplied,  provide yourself and your dependents with simple food and plain raiment and give away the blance.
W practised what he preached. as a young man he discovered that he could live on 28 pounds a year. when his income was 50 pounds a yaer,  he gave away 22 pounds and when his income was 400 (as it was often from the sale of his books) he still lived on 28 and gave away thhe balance. 'money never stays with me, he wrote, it would burn if it did. I throw it out of my hands as soon as possible, lest it should find a way into  my heart....
322  W continued to hope that all Methodists and to assume that all his preachers would act on these principles. so far as his preachers were concerned,  his confidence was justified. john jane, when he died left the sum of one shilling and 4 pence and his realisable property did not suffice to pay his funeral expenses...
W's rule for the proper use of riches was extremely simple. 'gain all you can.  save all  you can. give all you can'.  to quote from his sermon on Riches, 'I do not say, 'be a good Jew; giving a tenth of all you possess'. I do not say, 'Be a good pharisee; giving a fifth of all your substance. ' i dare not advise you to give half of what you have; no, nor three quarters; but all!
and by 'all' W meant everything that remained over after simple food and raiment had been provided for the household.
'O ye Methodists, hear the word of the lord! he continues. 'I have a message from God to all men, but to you above all. for above 40 years i have been a servant to you and to your fathers. and i have not been as a reed shaken with the wind:  I have not varied in my testimony. I have testified to you thee very same thing, from the first day even until  now. but 'who hath believed our report? I fear not many rich.
W was both pained and puzzled by the fact that the richer members of his congregations did not at once perceive
323  that his arguments were irresistible. 'lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth...how do the christians observe what they profess to receive as a command of the Most High God?  not at all! ...it might as well be still hid in its original greek, for any notice they take of it. in what christian city do you find one man of 500 who makes the least scruple of laying up just as much treasure as he can?'

it was all so perplexing. W always expected people to be guided by reason. the reasons against laying up treasures upon earth are unanswerable and yet the methodists continued to  grow richer and richer.

shortly before he died, W made his Will.  'I left no money to  anyone, he writes in his Will, because I have none.  this was not strictly accurate, for he named 3 preachers who  had o divide 'whatever money remains in my bureau and pockets at my death'.
his books, of course, represented a valuable property. the first charge on his property both before and after his death, was the annuity to charles W's widow and children. john W during the course of his long life ave away the balance to  charity.
his attitude to class distinctions is yet another illustration of his indifference to all  standards, excepting the eternal.
'rank, said jowett,  is not a dispensation of providence, but it is a fact',  and it is a fact of which even devout christians are seldom unaware.
there are many references to  the 'genteel vulgar' in W's Journal and few of these references are polite. 'O how hard it is to be shallow enough for a polite audience'...'showed as serious attention as if they had been poor colliers'...'even the genteel hearers were decent...the congregation was very large and very genteel  and yet as well behaved as any I have seen in
324  the kingdom...how unspeakable is the advantage in point of common sense which poor people have over the righ...I dined and Lady-----'s. we need great grace to converse with great people.  from which, therefore (unless in rare instances), I am glad to  be excused. ...of these two hours i can give no  good account'.
that, of course, was thee trouble. for every hour that passed, W felt it necessary to account as accurately as a bank clerk for every pound paid over the counter. had it not been for this haunting sense of vacation, W would have thoroughly enjoyed the society of his won class. few men were more capable of appreciating what he himself has called, 'that easy, open affability which is almost peculiar to christian and persons of quality. he was a welcome guest on those rare occasions when he condescended to  wast time with his friends. samuel johnson who disapproved of the methodists and who was a n excellent judge of social qualities, once said to Boswell,  'I hat to meet john W; the dog enchants me with his conversation and then breaks away to go and visit some old woman'. on another occasion he remarked, 'W's conversation is good,but he is never at leisure. he is always obliged to  go at a certain hour. this is very disagreeable to a man who loves to fold his legs and have his talk out. '

W's irritable comments on the rich cannot be explained by envy. he did not envy them their wealth, for such money as he himself made,he gave away.  he had no reason to envy them their birth or breeding, for he himself was a scholar and a gentlemen. the rich irritated him cause of his unresting preoccupation with the problem of salvation. he felt about the rich a kind of despair. their money made it so easy for them to exploit the
325  pleasures of this world, that it was difficult to persuade them to concentrate on the business of salvation from the wrath to come.
that a godly washerwoman is more deserving of respect than a godless duke, is a sentiment to which most christians might pay lip service. W acted on this belief. 'love, he says supplies all the essentials of good breeding without the help of a dancing master', a sentiment which is incorrect and which on other lips than W's would be, not only incorrect, but insincere. W viewed life sub specie aeternitatis; the only hierarchy in which he was interested was the hierarchy of saints. the sentiment against miscegenation (def. mixing of the races) has perhaps been implanted in us by nature for some good purpose. W was so obsessed by the eternal values that he completely lost all sense of class barriers. Grace, whom he was so anxious to marry, had been a servant. mrs. Ryan, to  whom he wrote the most intimate letters, letters entirely free, perhaps too free, of any hint of social barriers between them, began life as a servant and ended as housekeeper at Kingswood. the fact that Grace had been a servant did not weigh with W once he had convinced himself that Grace was a saint.
charles W would never have fallen in love with a servant.  in his attitude to class distinctions he was as conventional as john was unconventional.  charles married into a County family.  his home was visited by many of the great people of the day, largely because of the musical precocity of his children. when samuel, his most gifted son, decided to join the Church of Rome, no less a person than the Duchess of Norfolk was chosen to break the news to charles.
john W told people exactly what he thought of them, but there was no hint of condescension in his

326  'openness'. he never patronised people. 'it was his habit, we are told, to raise his hat to any poor person who thanked him for his kindness'. charles, on the other hand, couldnever forget that the lay preachers were not his social equals. he tried to bee kind and that, of course, started the trouble. 'God is my witness, he wrote to Cennick, how condescendingly loving I have been to you. john w never tried to be kind,  but the kindness of his hear pierces through the most abrupt of his letters. he did not spare people when he thought them wrong but the preachers who resented Charles's  condescending manner accepted without question john W's quiet assumption of autocratic powers.

W's sense of vocation would have been less oppressive had there been no other element in his religion that the love of God. the belief in the love of god was, indeed,  the central fact of W's religious life,  but he also pictured God as a stern Judge Who would  demand an  account of every minute and moment of his life.
...he could  not see the most innocent of hobbies excepting against a background of eternal judgment.
327  ...what are a few years more or less of life in comparison with the slightest risk of an eternity of frightful torment?
328  Tyrrell, in abrilliant essay, has pointed out the contrast between the lex orandi and the lex credendi, the law of prayer and the law of belief; in other words, the contrast between religion and philosophy. 'in the measure,  he writes, that God is dehumanized by philosophy, he becomes unreal and ineffectual in regard to our life and conduct'.
there is no place for a dehumanized God or even for a dehumanized devil in W's scheme. he was no philosopher, for the distinguishing mark of a philosopher is an intolerance of fundamental contradictions. W simply dismissed the reconciliation of such contradictions from his thoughts. 'if anyone asks,  'how is god's foreknowledge consistent with freedom, I plainly answer I cannot tell'. this, at least, is honest and quite as helpful as the bewildering and unconvincing arguments with which the great scholastics vainly endeavoured to reconcile free will and foreknowledge. and doubtless, had w been challenged to reconcile the love of God with the existence of an overcrowded hell, he would have made a similar reply. had the Calvinists, however, retorted, 'if anyone asks how god's love is consistent with the gospel of election, I plainly answer I cannot tell, W would have been very far from satisfied with the answer.
indeed, the distinction between Calvin's and W's doctrine of Hell does more credit to W's heart than tohis head.  'W will not believe, writes leslie stephen, that God has foredoomed 19 out of 20 of His creatures to eternal torture. the escape, of course,  from the dilemma is made by the doctrine of free will. the doctrine that God has made 20 creatures with the certainty that 19 will be damned and has left the selection to chance, is capable to being
329  presented in such a way as to avoid the shock to the imagination'.
W was a brillian debater, so long as he was defending the outposts of his creed...he scored a dialectical triumph in his controversy with bishop lavington.  indeed,he could defend Methodism far more convincingly than christianity itself, for he had no ready answer to certain criticisms of the substance rather than the accidentals of his faith.  a good illustration is his evasive, feeble reply to a certain 'infidel' who perplexed w with a line of attack, familiar to all students of Hyde Park theolgy.

'I spent an hour and a half in beating the air, in reasoning with an infidel of the lowest class. he told me roundly,  'I believe God is powerful and the Creator of all things. but I am nothing obliged to  Him for creating me, since He did it only for His own pleasure. neither can i believe that He is good, since He can remove all the evil in the world if He will. and therefore it is God's fault and no one's else,  that there is any evil in the universe'. (note - let him read Job 38-42 and Romans 1.16-32 for God's take.)
'I am afraid we could not deny this, adds W, if we allowed that god had 'from all eternity, unchangeably determined everything,  great and small, which comes to pass in time.'

no wonder that W 'beat the air' if he could think of no  better reply than this. 'my friends the Calvinists, said W in effect, would be dreadfully puzzled to answer your criticisms.  'of course,  they would, retorts 'the infidel of the lowest class, but what is your answer? W does not tell us.
our friend the low class infidel would have found much to criticise in W's Journal, he would not ,  for instance, have drawn the same conclusions as W from the following anecdote which W records in his Journal. (note - since every person created by God is guilty of not doing what His creator wants, if one were forgiven and give the GIFT of eternal life God would be to the plus side.)..

333  ..though it is difficult to find an answer to the criticisms of a Tyrrell, it is the paradox of religion,  that if results be any test of truth and sterile failure any criterion of falsehood,  it is the Wesleys rather than the Tyrrells who must be awarded the verdict of religious history...

..Tyrrell ..knew-none better-that prayer and praise must be simple, instinctive and anthropomorphic and he defended this thesis in the brilliant essay which supplies the title to  this chapter. Tyrrell was clever enough to discover and to explain the laws of prayer, but he was too clever to pray. 'knowledge about a thing, writes william james, is not the thing itself...to understand the causes of drunkenness, as a physician understands them is not to be drunk. a science might come to understand everything about the causes and elements of religion...and yet the best man at this science might be the man who found it hardest to be personally devout...if religion be a function by which either god's cause or man's cause is to be really advanced, then he who lives the life of it, however narrowly, is a better servant than he who merely knows about it, however much.

334...Tyrrell gradually drifted into scepticism. in regard to prayer, he wrote:  'I do not know; and that is the simple truth. as to my practice, i have gradually grown  dumb...

Chapter 26 -  Wesley's Closing Years

335  ..'the figure of Mr. W was remarkable. his stature was of tthe lowest, his habit of body in evry period of life the reverse of corpulent and exp